1

CITY UNIVERSITY LONDON

Library Makerspaces: Evaluating the Value of Digital Making in a UK

Public Library Setting

Pablo Calvo

January 2017

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MSc in

Library Science

Supervisor Dr Lyn Robinson

2

Abstract

Makerspaces – workshops openly accessible to the public, where people can create objects or learn

about making – are a much talked about subject within the library world. An increasing number of

public libraries, as well as school and academic libraries, are establishing, or planning to establish

makerspaces within their institutions. Many enthusiastic claims are made about the potential

benefits of makerspaces, by supporting and encouraging: creativity, enterprise, learning and self-

fulfilment. However, there is limited research looking at whether those claims are borne out in

practice, particularly within a library context.

This study aims to evaluate the extent to which those claims are applicable to public library

makerspaces, by researching what the benefits are to users of an individual makerspace. DigiLab

makerspace in Barking Library and Learning Centre was chosen as a case study site, in order to test

the validity of these claims in an established public library makerspace. Qualitative data was

collected through semi-structured interviews with DigiLab organisers and members, and analysis of

projects and objects made by members.

The research found that in the case of DigiLab, the makerspace environment supports and develops

the creativity of its users, promotes informal learning and knowledge sharing between members and

provides opportunities for putting skills learnt towards making money. Perhaps more than anything,

DigiLab is a highly social space, which encourages people to develop and fulfil personal goals.

Though the findings are specific to the context of DigiLab, it is hoped that some features of the

makerspace can be applied elsewhere.

3

Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 4

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 6

3. Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 9

4. Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 9

4.1 The Maker Movement .............................................................................................................. 10

4.2 Makerspaces in Libraries ........................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Research into Makerspaces: non-library contexts .................................................................... 15

4.4 Literature Review Conclusion ................................................................................................... 19

5. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 19

5.1 Site Selection ............................................................................................................................. 19

5.2 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 23

5.3 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 25

6. DigiLab site visit results ................................................................................................................. 26

6.1 Tour of DigiLab .......................................................................................................................... 26

6.2 Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 30

7. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 36

8. References .................................................................................................................................... 38

9. Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix 9.1 Dissertation Reflection .......................................................................................... 45

Appendix 9.2 Dissertation Proposal ............................................................................................ 46

Appendix 9.3 Email sent to potential participants ...................................................................... 54

Appendix 9.4 Interview Transcripts ............................................................................................ 55

Appendix 9.5 Participant Information sheet ............................................................................... 69

Appendix 9.6 Participant Consent form ...................................................................................... 71

4

List of Tables

Table 1. Case study site selection: comparison of public library makerspaces .................................. 21

Table 2. Semi-structured interview guide ........................................................................................... 24

Table 3. Potential indicators of makerspace benefits ......................................................................... 25

List of Figures

Figure 1. DigiLab entrance [video still] (Source: DigiLab 2016c) ......................................................... 26

Figure 2. DigiLab floorplan [drawing] (Source: London Borough of Barking & Dagenham 2016) ...... 27

Figure 3. DigiLab main area [photograph] .......................................................................................... 28

Figure 4. DigiLab big "D" [photograph] ............................................................................................... 28

Figure 5. VR room and 3D printer and YouTube room [photograph] ................................................. 29

Figure 6. Bench space used for electronics. Future shop area in background [photograph] ............. 29

Figure 7. Autonomous robot produced by a team of 9 - 12 year olds [photograph] ......................... 33

Figure 8. "Lollicopter" retail product [drawing] (Source DigiLab 2016d) ............................................. 33

5

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Seun Oshinaike and Ayo Arigbabu of Barking DigiLab for sharing their time and

insights about digital making.

6

1. Introduction

Most simply defined as “public workshops where makers can share tools and knowledge” (Taylor,

Hurley and Connolly 2016, p. 1), makerspaces are currently a much talked about topic within the

library world. An increasing number of libraries are establishing or planning to establish spaces

where their users can create. Though the concept of makerspaces within libraries may seem

unusual, their “values strongly echo libraries’ core mission of providing equal access to knowledge

resources” (Taylor, Hurley and Connolly 2016, p. 2).

Public librarians in the UK are becoming increasingly interested in implementing makerspaces within

their libraries. Being that it involves technology and concepts relatively unfamiliar to most library

workers, there has consequently been huge amount interest in the practicalities of implementing

makerspaces. There has also been much interest in defining potential benefits of makerspaces;

however, this is something that can be very difficult to define and measure.

This upsurge of interest is framed by the current funding crisis facing public libraries in the UK. The

implementation of makerspaces could be seen as either an expensive distraction from the core

mission of libraries in a difficult period, or as a possible solution to keep libraries relevant and

sustainable in modern society.

The establishment of makerspaces is still in a relatively early stage in the UK, and the debate is

characterised by equal measures of excitement, trepidation, technical language, speculation,

scepticism and enthusiasm. As such, there is a need for original research into this emergent area,

especially in the context of UK public libraries.

2. Background

Makerspace definition

It is important to define the term makerspace, and why this particular term has been chosen over

alternative names for the purpose of this research. Makerspaces refer to open workshops, accessible

to any member of the public (either for free or paid for). Though they often feature high-tech digital

fabrication equipment such as 3D printers and laser cutters, they can give access to low-tech and

high-tech equipment. It is too simplistic to define makerspaces simply as a collection of tools; as

John Burke argues, makerspaces are “combinations of a community of users, a collection of tools

and a desire to create, exchange knowledge, and share what is created. The defining character of a

makerspace is that it enables making.” (Burke 2014, p. xv).

There are many alternative names for these types of space – makerspaces, Fab Lab, hackerspace and

TechShop being amongst the most commonly used. Each of these terms reflects a particular

technical emphasis, community ethos or organisational structure. FabLabs originated in 2005 from

the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Centre for Bits and Atoms – and now form part of a

global network of over 1,000 workshops, all sharing a common charter, a standardised core

inventory of equipment and networks for sharing knowledge, support and education (Fab

Foundation 2015). TechShop is the brand name of a for-profit chain of workshops throughout the

7

USA founded in 2006, which offer “public access to high-end manufacturing equipment in exchange

for membership fees” (Cavalcanti 2013). As FabLab and Techshop are both brand names, it will not

be appropriate to use them to describe these types of space generically. The term hackspace or

hackerspace originated in Europe in the mid-1990s, and describes a much very loosely-organised

informal network of community run spaces, sharing a counter-cultural “hacker ethic”. Hackspaces

encompass many types of making activities, but generally have an emphasis on programming and

electronics. Cavalcanti argues that the negative connotations of the term hacking makes the term

“fundamentally exclusionary” (Cavalcanti 2013), which to some extent works against their principle

of openness.

In the UK, there are 38 spaces currently affiliated as FabLabs (Fablabs n.d.). TechShop primarily

operate in the USA, though there are 3 TechShops in other countries (TechShop n.d.), with plans to

open a TechShop in Birmingham (Pearson 2014). The UK Hackspace Foundation lists 66 sites across

the UK which are part of its network (UK Hackspace Foundation 2016). The NESTA open dataset of

UK makerspaces listed 97 makerspaces as of April 2015, which includes FabLabs, Hackspaces and

other types of independent “open workshops” which fit within the makerspace ethos (Sleigh,

Stewart and Stokes 2015b, p. 4).

I have chosen to use the term makerspace (Makerspace or maker space also very commonly used) as

the most generic description, encompassing all of these types of space which share the common

ethos of the Maker Movement (which will be further explored in the literature review). I agree with

Cavalcanti (2013) that the term makerspace is more inclusive, representing “a far more mainstream

vision of a publicly-accessible creative space”, which aligns well with the purpose of a public library.

Additionally, makerspace is probably the most commonly used within a LIS context, as roughly

demonstrated by searching in the two biggest LIS bibliographic databases LISA and LISTA: the search

makerspace* OR "maker space*" generates the significantly more results (81 in LISA, 234 in LISTA,

92 in Emerald) than hackerspace*" OR "hacker space*" (6 in LISA, 11 in LISTA) or fablab* OR "fab

lab*" (9 in LISA, 24 in LISTA).

Context of makerspaces in UK public libraries

The primary context for this research is the upsurge in interest about makerspaces from public

libraries in the UK. The first library makerspace in the USA was Fayetteville Free Library in 2011

(McCue 2011), with dozens more established across the country since then – at least 98 established

or soon to be established as of November 2013 (Burke 2014, pp. 165 - 166). In the UK, though there

are numerous open workshops which would fall under the makerspace category, only a handful

have so far been established in public libraries – according to Anstice, there are 12 currently

operational permanent public library makerspaces, with Dundee and Exeter libraries being the first

launched in May 2014 (Anstice n.d.).

Despite the relatively low uptake currently, the huge interest in the subject is evident from a number

of recent conferences, workshops, resource guides and initiatives aimed at public librarians. For

example, in 2015 the Society of Chief Librarians (SCL) launched Code Green, a toolkit of resources to

help public libraries roll out digital making opportunities, created in response to the huge demand of

libraries across the country for guidance and advice on this subject (Eastell 2015). The Code Green

website provides practical advice on different types of digital making activities, case studies, and

advice on volunteers, marketing and community involvement. In the past year there have been

8

numerous very well attended conferences and events aimed at helping UK public libraries launch

makerspaces (SCL 2016 ; Makercart and Artefacto 2016 ; FabLab Devon 2015).

In Scotland, SLIC (the Scottish Library and Information Council) has funded a £76,000 project to

provide 3D printers and training to all of Scotland’s 32 library authorities (SLIC 2016), which is in

addition to several Scottish library authorities having their own pre-existing makerspaces (Robertson

2016, pp. 4 - 9). SLIC’s project will provide a consistent brand and level of service across the whole of

Scotland, with each local authority being provided with the same 3D printer and staff training. This

significant coordinated investment demonstrates the level of interest public libraries and governing

bodies in incorporating digital making as part of their core offering.

In addition, the interest in makerspaces must be considered within the current situation facing

public libraries in the UK, a combination of:

• declining use – number of visits dropped by 25% over the decade since 2005 (Woodhouse

and Dempsey 2016, p. 18)

• severe funding cuts – funding cut by £180m (16%) from 2010 – 2015 (CIPFA 2015)

• and library closures - 8,000 (24.8%) library jobs lost since 2010 (BBC 2016; BBC Data Unit

2016) and 565 (12.8%) library service points closed 2005 - 2015 (Woodhouse and Dempsey

2016, p. 18)

Considering the situation facing libraries, there are concerns that the cost and staff expertise needed

to implement makerspaces could prevent the widespread adoption. In response to these serious

issues for the future of libraries, makerspaces can be seen in two ways. There are many who would

advocate for makerspaces as a way of redefining what public libraries offer, and increase their

relevance to modern society (Willet 2016, pp. 319 - 321). On the other hand, there is anxiety

amongst some commentators over whether makerspaces prevent libraries serving traditional

purposes, by diverting resources - funding, staff time and physical space (Barniskis 2016, pp. 107 -

108).

Scope of the study

This study concentrates on makerspaces within UK public libraries; primarily in the form of already

established and operational makerspaces, but also drawing on the wider interest and debate about

them within the public library sector, which is likely to lead to a much larger uptake. The reason for

the focus on public libraries (as opposed to other types of library) is because of the way public

libraries are open and accessible to everyone, encourage free or low-cost access to knowledge and

learning, and act as the focus of community activities – all characteristics in common with the so-

called Maker Movement from which the concept of makerspaces emerged.

However, as there is only a fairly limited number of currently operational makerspaces within UK

public libraries, examples and literature are drawn from a wider field – the Maker Movement,

research into makerspaces in other contexts, and from countries where makerspaces within public

libraries are already more common.

Though examples and models will be taken from other contexts, the purpose of this research is to

determine their applicability to UK public libraries – as opposed to other types of library, such as

school or academic, or to establishing makerspaces in non-library settings (for example within

community centres, as artists’ studios or as for-profit businesses).

9

This research concentrates on library services which have already implemented more fully fledged

makerspaces. Many public libraries offering opportunities for making to some extent, ranging from

more traditional IT courses, support with mobile devices and craft activities, to more recent trends,

such as Code Clubs or Lego Robotics clubs. The scope of this research is limited to libraries that have

gone a step further from offering one-off events, and established permanent or semi-permanent

spaces dedicated to making. The spaces to be studied would have to fit within the definition of

makerspaces as set out by Sleigh, Stewart and Stokes: “an open access space (free or paid), with

facilities for different practices, where anyone can come and make something” (Sleigh, Stewart and

Stokes 2015b, p. 2). Because the aim of the research is to establish the benefits of makerspaces for

users, it is hoped that libraries where makerspaces have been established for some time will have

had time to develop and provide real-life examples of those benefits.

3. Aims and Objectives

No two makerspaces are alike, each being uniquely dependent on the needs of the community and

the level of resources available. The aim of this research is to discern what the potential benefits of

makerspaces can be for their users, and to attempt to discover the extent of these benefits. It is

hope that this research will be useful for both already established makerspaces, and for libraries

planning future makerspaces.

In order to achieve this aim, the following objectives will be sought to be met:

• What the types of users are of the makerspace?

• How has the makerspace attempted to find out user needs and expectations?

• What are the uses of makerspaces, in terms of physical outcomes and products?

• Outline the benefits to users

• Assess the longer-term sustainability of makerspace models

4. Literature Review

The literature review will provide a context of previous research within which the current study fits,

covering three main areas: research into the Maker Movement, the LIS perspective on makerspaces

and research into existing makerspaces form non-LIS domains. Examining these themes within the

literature will give an idea of the historical development of makerspaces, highlight in what ways

makerspaces are claimed to provide benefits and provide examples of methodologies for studying

them.

Examining literature related to the Maker Movement will help define what is covered by the term

“making” in this context, and provide an overview of the different variations of makerspaces. This

will give an indication of the general claims made about the benefits of making and makerspaces.

Looking at the LIS literature will give an idea of how the more general claims about the Maker

10

Movement are being theoretically discussed and practically applied within the specific context of

libraries. As the concept of makerspaces in libraries is relatively new, research into makerspaces in

other domains is a more established (though still developing) field, and will help bring further

insight.

4.1 The Maker Movement

The emergence of makerspaces is intrinsically linked with the phenomenon of the “Maker

Movement” – a term which describes the upsurge of interest in “constructing and sharing personal

inventions and creative artifacts” (Halverson and Sheridan 2014, p. 496). It consists of an amorphous

grassroots grouping of individuals with different objectives “united by a common desire to be

involved in the production of things” (Dellot 2015, p. 13).

Interest in the Maker Movement comes from several different, but overlapping, contexts: education

and schools; hobbyists and DIY enthusiast; entrepreneurs, designers and inventors; social

enterprises; as well as libraries. The value of looking at the Maker Movement in the context of this

dissertation is that much of the ethos, and success stories from it can be used as inspiration for

innovative library services.

Some of the key elements of the Maker Movement ethos are: the importance of informal hands-on

learning, play and tinkering (Dougherty 2012, pp. 11 - 12); collaborative work practices, knowledge

sharing and advocacy for open source and open access (Dellot 2015, p. 17); the impact of new

technologies on manufacturing and culture, as a “new industrial revolution” (Anderson 2012;

Gershenfeld 2012). However, it should be taken into consideration that many of these claims within

the literature appear to some commentators to be highly speculative (Hielscher and Smith 2014, p.

2), in that they are based on an emergent sector, and that the hype surrounding the Maker

Movement sometimes risks “extrapolating and inflating claims” without considering participants’

own activities, aims and motivations (Hielscher and Smith 2014, p. 5).

Origins of the Maker Movement

Though the name Maker Movement sounds unremarkable, as people have been making things

throughout all of history, the emergence of the internet and the cheap availability of digital

fabrication technology has come together to form a huge surge in interest from ordinary people

making physical objects. The lowering cost of technology such as 3D printing enables people to

manufacture complex objects previously only achievable by industrial methods, whilst the internet

has allowed people to learn how to make use of these technologies: seek advice, share ideas and

collaborate online (Burke 2014, pp. 10 - 11).

The Maker Movement is a relatively recent term coined by Dale Dougherty, and its particular

emphasis on the word “make” is largely derived from the popularity of the DIY magazine Make

(founded by Dougherty in 2005) and the Maker Faires associated with the publication, started in

2006 (Anderson 2013). Though the Make brand plays an important role in popularising the concept,

the Maker Movement is quite an amorphous one “comprised of individual makers, local and regional

maker events and publications, and a host of digital do-it-yourself resources” (Sheridan et al. 2014,

pp. 505 - 506). Dougherty’s inspiration for founding Make magazine was from publications such as

11

Popular Mechanics, which had their peak in the mid-twentieth century, a period he describes as “a

time when most Americans commonly thought of themselves as tinkerers” (Dougherty 2012, p. 11).

Though the name is quite new, a common theme in the literature is that making is a fundamental

human activity (Halverson and Sheridan 2014, p. 496), and precursors to the Maker Movement can

be traced through history. Dellot (2015, p. 15) outlines four movements which champion making,

from the Luddite and the Arts and Craft movements of the nineteenth century; through to the

development of early home computing led by the Hacker movement of the 1960s and 70s; and

finally the contemporary Maker Movement. Dougherty makes the claim that “we are all makers” –

making is intrinsic to almost everyone, but some of these skills have been lost because of a declining

sense of necessity for these skills (Dougherty 2012, p. 11). Like Dellot, several commentators also

trace a precedent for the Maker Movement in the early pioneers of the computing industry in Silicon

Valley (Dougherty 2012, p. 12; Anderson 2012, pp. 20 - 23). The computing industry of Silicon was

founded largely on a DIY ethic – such as Apple’s origins from the “garage tinkerers” of the

Homebrew Computer Club (Anderson 2012, p. 22) – and it is ironic that the spectacular success of

these companies has led to a sense of technological disconnect with Making because the “devices

they create have become so widespread and people no longer need to be enthusiasts to use them”

(Dougherty 2012, p. 12).

Reconnecting with Technology

A major claim of the Maker Movement is that it can reconnect people with technology, by

encouraging playful experimentation, with in turn can possibly help people move from consuming to

creating technology. Dellot (2015, pp. 9 - 10) discusses the Maker Movement’s potential share the

fruits of technology more widely within society. Dellot describes this as a three phase process:

access, acumen and agency. The first phase is access to technology, which has been addressed by

supplying personal computer technology and connecting them to the internet; the second phase is

technological acumen, which involves instilling digital literacy to operate the technology. These first

two phases are already being largely addressed in society, but Dellot claims that the problem of

technological agency is the most pressing, with the Maker Movement uniquely placed to help

people understand and use technology, in order to turn it to fulfil their own needs (Dellot 2015, p.

10).

In turn, it is claimed that this renewed engagement with technology could how have positive

environmental impacts – as people gain a better understanding of how the technology they use

works, they may be more able to repair and recycle devices, rather than disposing of them (Hielscher

and Smith 2014, p. 42). It is suggested that if such practices were to become more widespread, it

would represent not just a major environmental benefit, but also shift political shift in people’s

perception of consumer technology, allowing for “material forms of civic engagement” (Ree 2011, p.

88).

Educational benefits of the Maker Movement

Burke describes the Maker Movement as a “collective concept”, with community as the “defining

element of the maker movement on both a local and international scale” (Burke 2014, p. 12). There

is a strong emphasis on learning practical skills and sharing that knowledge, so that DIY Do-It-

12

Yourself becomes Do-It-Together. This is largely facilitated by web technology and the culture of

online sharing:

Projects shared online become inspiration for others and opportunities for collaboration.

Individual Makers, globally connected this way, become a movement, millions of DIYers,

once working alone, suddenly start working together. […] Thus ideas, shared, turn into

bigger ideas. […] And those projects can become the seeds of products, movements even

industries. The simple act of “making in public” can become the engine of innovation, even if

that was not the intent. (Anderson 2012, pp. 13 - 14)

This ties in with the extremely strong connection between the Maker Movement and education,

particularly non-traditional informal forms of learning. In particular, Seymour Papert’s educational

theory of Constructionism is applied to the context of Making (Burke 2014, p. 13; Sheridan et al.

2014, p. 507). Constructionism is based on the theory that learners create mental models to help

them learn, and that by extension creating actual products or artefacts help strengthen students’

learning. The artefact, and the process of creating the artefact, functions as an evolving

representation of the learner’s thinking (Papert 1993 in Sheridan et al. 2014, p. 507). This is often

approached through problem based learning exercises “in which a student is given a problem to

overcome that will teach him or her about the subject being covered” (Steger 2013 in Burke 2014, p.

13). As Burke points out, problem solving is often central to Making, as the necessity fix a problem is

often the motivation behind starting many projects (Burke 2014, p. 13).

Another common educational emphasis of the Maker Movement is promoting STEM (Science,

Technology, Engineering and Maths) learning opportunities in ways that engage student’s

imaginations, and encourage them to consider STEM careers. The motivation behind this emphasis

can be related increasing national competitiveness, filling open positions in high-technology fields,

or broadening the intellectual capacities of students (Burke 2014, p. 4). Closely related to this is the

drive to include arts into these educational programmes (creating the acronym STEAM). As Burke

points out, the creativity associated with arts can have applications in other fields of problem

solving, and is particularly suited to the “breadth of creativity available in many makerspaces, where

engineering and artistic creations can exist side by side as well as integrated efforts” (Burke 2014, p.

14).

Economic benefits of the Maker Movement

A major claimed benefit of the Maker Movement is that it could bring major economic benefits by

encouraging inventors and entrepreneurs. Van Holm claims that there are three ways in which

Maker Movement supports entrepreneurs:

The maker movement attracts more individuals into product design, and thus may launch

more “accidental entrepreneurs” if they find that their user solutions have a market.

Secondly, the maker movement generates dense but diverse networks, creating new ideas

and innovative thinking. Lastly, the maker movement lowers the costs for prototyping,

making early sales and acquiring outside funding more realistic. (Van Holm 2015, p. 24)

Chris Anderson also lists three similar characteristics of the Maker Movement:

1. People using digital desktop tools to create designs for new products and prototype them

(“digital DIY”).

2. A cultural norm to share those designs and collaborate with others in online communities.

13

3. The use of common design file standards that allow anyone, if they desire, to send their files

to commercial manufacturing services to be produced in any number, just as easily as they

can fabricate them on the desktop. This radically foreshortens the path from idea to

entrepreneurship, just as the Web did in software, information, and content. (Anderson

2012, p. 21)

Anderson argues that this is leading to people “industrializing the do-it-yourself (DIY) spirit”

(Anderson 2012, p. 9) to such an extent that he terms it a “third Industrial Revolution” – the

combination of low cost manufacturing technologies such as 3D Printing and the sharing of open

source ideas online “dramatically amplify the productivity of people” in ways that they could disrupt

industrial scale manufacturing (Anderson 2012, p. 30).

According to Dougherty, these benefits could also be taken advantage of by companies as well as

individuals. Companies could look out to the maker community as a source of talent and ideas, as

well as engaging their own employees with makerspace type environments, in order to “get to the

heart of what they are passionate about and what they’re working on outside the confines of the

company walls” (Dougherty 2012, pp. 13 - 14).

4.2 Makerspaces in Libraries

According to Hielscher and Smith (2014, p. 20) academic literature looking at “community-based

digital fabrication workshops” (analogous to makerspaces) is rare in comparison to media reports

and activist writing. Most existing social science research has focussed on business, technical and

industry aspects, rather than on social, cultural and political implications (Hielscher and Smith 2014,

p. 20). As noted by several commentators (Moorefield-Lang 2014, p. 584 and 2015, p. 108; Barniskis

2016, p. 104) the same pattern seems to apply to literature specifically dealing with makerspaces in

libraries, with most of the literature being media reports or advocacy and practical advice, with little

research into social impact.

Practical advice for practitioners

The majority of LIS literature consists of practitioner reports of how particular makerspaces were set

up in variety of contexts, for example school libraries (Canino-Fluit 2014; Craddock 2015; Daley and

Child 2015), public libraries (Brady et al. 2014; Britton and Considine 2012; Dixon and Ward 2014;

Dugmore et al. 2014; Haug 2014), academic libraries (Carr et al. 2016; Nowlan 2015; Pryor 2014) or

particular types of makerspace such as mobile makerspaces (de Boer 2015; Craddock 2015;

Gierdowski and Reis 2015). These tend to focus on offering practical advice and examples of best

practice for other practitioners considering establishing makerspaces, based on the authors’ own

experiences of planning and implementing makerspaces within their own institutions. These typically

describe the following issues: the reasons for starting a makerspace in their institution; pre-existing

or trial maker events; sources of funding; equipment choice; community engagement; programme

development; staff training; marketing and promotion; challenges and successes; future plans.

Boyle et al. provide a list of four recommendations for other libraries, based on a literature review of

library practitioner reports (Boyle et al. 2016, pp. 37 - 38).

14

• They recommend libraries “customise and contextualise” their plans – there is no single

cookie cutter model all libraries can copy – they need to adapt equipment and activities to

reflect local staffing, hours, budget and most importantly community needs.

• to “engage your community” – consulting to find pre-existing needs, interests and expertise;

build a self-sustaining maker community and to recruit volunteers.

• to “be flexible”, allowing for experimentation and changing interests, in order for a space to

develop. Starting small and scale up, reviewing regularly to make continuous improvements

• to “promote your space” to advocate for the benefits of a makerspace, both out to the

community, but also in to library staff, who may be sceptical.

According to Boyle et al., the benefits of makerspaces include:

empowering your community, fostering community collaboration and co-creation, growing a

larger, more engaged user base, enabling inter-generational learning and social

connectedness, facilitating trans-literacy, developing a culture of lifelong learning and

adding socio-economic advantage to communities. Creative spaces also provide an

opportunity for libraries to future-proof themselves and adapt to meet the changing nature

of society. (Boyle et al. 2016, p. 30)

Slatter and Howard identify three common challenges for libraries implementing makerspaces

(Slatter and Howard 2013, pp. 277 - 278): the new nature of makerspaces means there is a steep

learning curve for space organisers, and also makes it challenging to communicate the value of

makerspace to people used to more traditional library models; budgetary constraints limiting what

equipment can be purchased; and legal concerns over copyright, liability and ownership. Despite

these challenges, they suggest that there are substantive benefits: “enhanced community

engagement, development of a new form of library as ‘third place’, and transforming the library’s

image from that of a place where works are consumed to that of a place where works are created”

(Slatter and Howard 2013, p. 272).

There is evidence in the LIS literature that elements of the Maker Movement ethos are being

incorporated into the education of new librarians and information professionals. Bowler (2014) and

Luthy (2015) both describe pilot studies within university Library and Information Science

departments to test ways of equipping students with new skills and knowledge “needed to

understand, start, and manage makerspaces and maker-related technology” (Luthy 2015, p. 5).

Luthy’s study focuses on the creation of resources (including online workshops and tutorials, and an

online toolkit) that would be readily accessible to students and current practitioners (Luthy 2015, p.

5). Bowler’s study aims to develop ways to integrate design challenges into and “maker” experiences

into a formal LIS curriculum, in order to expand “opportunities for creativity” out to school and

public libraries (Bowler 2014, p. 61). Koh (2015) also identifies a lack of research studies into the

skills and competencies required to run makerspaces within libraries or museums, nor any official list

of competencies by professional bodies (in the USA) (Koh 2015, p. 115). Through interviews with

information professionals currently running library or museum Makerspaces or Learning Labs, Koh

identifies a list of five top competencies and five skills needed to successfully run these spaces:

• Competencies: (1) ability to learn, (2) ability to adapt to changing situations, (3) ability to

collaborate, (4) ability to advocate for the Learning Lab or Makerspace, and (5) ability to

serve diverse people. (Koh 2015, p. 119)

• Skills: (1) management, (2) program development, (3) grant writing and fund raising, (4)

technology literacy, and (5) facilitating learning based on learning theories and user

behaviors. (Koh 2015, p. 121)

15

It is not clear to what extent thinking about Making is being incorporated into LIS education more

generally, or whether this would translate into benefits on practice. Moorefield-Lang claims that

though training is an area of concern for those running or establishing makerspaces, practicing

librarians are finding ways to gain the knowledge they need to manage their makerspaces

(Moorefield-Lang 2015, p. 111).

As well as literature in LIS journals, there is a growing body of resources specifically aimed at

providing practical advice for libraries seeking to start makerspaces, including: two books (Burke

2014; Willingham and de Boer 2015), blogs and resource guides (Artefacto n.d.; Ginsberg n.d.), an e-

learning kit designed by the Society of Chief Librarians (SCL n.d.), and numerous conferences and

events (SCL 2016; Makercart and Artefacto 2016 ; FabLab Devon 2015).

Criticisms of makerspaces in libraries

Willet’s study of LIS makerspace discourse analyses the “ways professional journal articles and blog

posts aimed at public librarians define public library makerspaces, including the people and practices

involved in these spaces” (Willet 2016, p. 318). By analysing this body of literature, Willet discerned

common themes in how makerspaces are being discussed and promoted, but also highlights several

tensions and conflicting or unfounded claims. The three common themes identified are:

Makerspaces and the Future of Public Libraries, DIY/Maker Cultures and Public Library Makerspaces

and Informal Learning in Public Library Makerspaces. Some of the tensions Willets highlights include:

whether makerspaces are a radically new approach or a continuation of what libraries have always

done (Willet 2016, p. 320); making bold claims about community empowerment, encourage people

to create rather than consume culture and reaching non-traditional audiences, but with no clarity

from the literature whether these aims are being fulfilled by library makerspaces (Willet 2016, p.

322); a framing of creativity in terms of productive or economic benefits, rather than for individual

creative expression (Willet 2016, p. 323); an oversimplified opposition between informal and formal

education, which risks ignoring “who might benefit or be excluded from different teaching styles”

(Willet 2016, p. 326).

4.3 Research into Makerspaces: non-library contexts

Research into makerspaces is more developed outside the LIS domain (though still very much a new

field), with attempts to assess the social benefits of makerspaces being more thoroughly researched

than with the library context. This section of the literature review selectively focuses on studies that

have carried out research in existing makerspaces, in an attempt to assess the benefits derived by

users of makerspaces. It is particularly useful to note the methodologies used in these cases, to help

design the methodology of this research.

Studies assessing extent of makerspaces in the UK

Several recent projects have sought to assess the current extent of makerspaces within the UK.

Nesta’s open dataset of UK makerspaces (Sleigh, Stewart and Stokes 2015a) aggregates extremely

detailed information about makerspaces of all varieties around the UK. The aim of the study is to

map where makerspaces are located in the UK, and discern what different forms they take. The

16

findings are published as an open data set (published under a Creative Commons Attribution-

ShareAlike licence), allowing other researchers to build upon Nesta’s research. It provides both

detailed information at an individual level, and a broad picture of trends and categories across the

country. The report found 97 makerspaces in the UK, with socialising, learning and making stated as

the top reasons for people using the spaces (Sleigh, Stewart and Stokes 2015b, p. 4 ; p. 6).

Makerspaces are quite evenly spread throughout the UK: there are spaces in every region, most

cities having at least one makerspace, though London has around a fifth of the total number (Sleigh,

Stewart and Stokes 2015b, pp. 3 – 4). The dataset provides a snapshot of the state of makerspaces at

the time of publication in April 2015, but as the authors state it is very much a rapidly changing

situation – of the 97 spaces found only 9 of them had existed in 2010 (Sleigh, Stewart and Stokes

2015c). The research method used were desk research to identify sites and a survey distributed

online (Sleigh, Stewart and Stokes 2015b, p. 2). The survey had questions about location; tools,

equipment and materials; services, amenities and accessibility; members, visits and staff; external

connections; sustainability and membership; aspirations; challenges. Sleigh et al. propose a set of

common categories of makerspace, as well as comparative features for making sense of the variety

of makerspaces in the UK.

The Open Workshop Network (Corbin 2016) is a project to map the makerspace community in

London. There are currently 44 workshops listed in their directory, which probably demonstrates the

rapid growth of makerspaces since April 2015, when the NESTA dataset lists 20, though it is also

possible that Corbin’s definition of an “open workshop” is more inclusive than NESTA’s definition of

a “makerspace”. The methodology used seeks to work collaboratively with the participants,

encouraging them to “steer the direction of the project and hold co-ownership over the data that is

produced” (Corbin 2016). One of the major products of this research is an online map tool of all the

workshops, which can be searched by name, location, services, disciplines, materials or tools, which

serves as an excellent tool for makers, makerspaces and researchers (Corbin n.d.).

Studies examining existing makerspaces to assess social impact

The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce’s (RSA) Ours to

Master project (Dellot 2015) seeks to answer these questions: “Why are makerspaces emerging, and

why now? What impact are they having on their users and the communities in which they are

based? And is this an enduring trend or a passing fad?” (Dellot 2015, p. 5). This project uses mixed

methods: desk research, data mining of government datasets, an expert roundtable, semi-structured

interviews with stakeholders, visits to 12 makerspaces across the UK and a YouGov survey of

“people’s attitudes towards making, makerspaces and the wider economy” (Dellot 2015, p. 12).

Dellot concludes that makerspaces can benefit people in three key ways: self-fulfilment, learning,

enterprise (Dellot 2015, p. 6).

The Making Community: The Wider Role of Makerspaces in Public Life project contends that “access

to the benefits of makerspace facilities is unevenly spread” and sought to find out how they could

have a wider social impact (Taylor, Hurley and Connolly 2016, p. 1). The researchers used site visits

to 15 makerspaces across the UK, toured the facilities and conducted semi-structured interviews

with makerspace organisers, asking about “the history, motivations and ambitions of the facility, its

user base, typical activities, promotion and outreach, and specific examples relating to excluded

communities” (Taylor, Hurley and Connolly 2016, p. 3). The study found evidence that makerspaces

can play four broad social roles (Taylor, Hurley and Connolly 2016, p. 1):

17

• serving as social spaces,

• supporting wellbeing,

• serving the needs of local communities,

• and reaching out to excluded groups

In terms of being social spaces, the researchers found that though many users were initially drawn

by the tools and facilities, they continued to attend because they value the aspect of socialising so

much. Makerspaces have the ability to turn “otherwise solitary activities such as coding into

communal activities that could be shared with others” (Taylor, Hurley and Connolly 2016, p. 4).

Linked to this is the impact makerspaces can have on wellbeing – though it may not be a stated aim

of makerspaces, the shared activity of making with other people can help people who have difficulty

interacting with others “to develop skills and to engage with the world in a productive way” (Taylor,

Hurley and Connolly 2016, p. 7). As for serving local needs, some spaces take on a very active role –

taking on projects for local schools or councils, starting apprenticeship schemes, or one FabLab in

Belfast serving to “bring together people from both sides of the Northern Ireland conflict around

shared, constructive tasks and activities that helped to develop skills and economic prosperity”

(Taylor, Hurley and Connolly 2016, p. 6).

Taylor, Hurley and Connolly claim that despite the best intentions, many makerspaces struggle to

appear accessible to wider audiences beyond “early adopters with technical or creative backgrounds

and a large proportion are affluent males” (Taylor, Hurley and Connolly 2016, p. 1), and advocate

that makerspace organisers should seek to vocally highlight and promote their beneficial qualities in

order to be able to widen the access and impact of makerspaces as community resources. Not all

makerspaces will fill all of these roles in equal measure, but most should be able to bring at least

some of these benefits to their users and communities – and I would argue that argue that libraries

could play an important role in breaking down barriers to wider accessibility.

For the study, Learning in the Making: A Comparative Case Study of Three Makerspaces Sheridan et

al. use a comparative case study of three makerspaces, to analyse how they function as learning

environments. They employed a variety of qualitative methods to draw very detailed pictures of the

activities and interactions of users within the makerspaces – conducting over 150 hours of field

observations and interviews as well as extensive analyses of Web-based archives, such as blog

postings, online community discussions, and video and photo documentation of making activities

and finished works (Sheridan et al. 2014, p. 510). The guiding research questions were: “1. Who

participates in these makerspaces? 2. How and to what ends are tools, materials, and processes

used in each makerspace? 3. What are the arrangements for learning, teaching, and collaborating in

each space?” (Sheridan et al. 2014, p. 510).

Sheridan et al. were guided in their analysis by drawing from literature on formal and informal

learning environments. At the more formal end of their educational activities, Sheridan et al. claim

that makerspaces are comparable to visual arts studio learning environments, in that “participants

work independently or collaboratively with materials to design and make” (Sheridan et al. 2014, p.

508). Based on earlier research into visual art studio classes by Hetland, Winner, Veenema, and

Sheridan (2013) (in Sheridan et al. 2014, p. 508), four key “studio structures” are identified as central

to the design of studio learning environments:

1. in demonstration-lectures, teachers pose open-ended challenges, show exemplars, and

demonstrate processes to engage and inform students,

2. in students-at-work, students work on their art and teachers circle the room observing and

giving “just-in-time” instruction,

18

3. in critiques, the working process is paused as the group collectively reflects on student work,

and

4. in exhibitions, students’ work is shared with a community beyond the studio classroom.

Though makerspaces often tend to be more informally structured than in visual arts studio

education, Sheridan et al. claim that many of the characteristics of these studio structures can be

identified in them, and that making use of this studio model can helped them see the “pedagogical

structure in the flow of the multiple informal interactions and activities” in the makerspaces they

observed (Sheridan et al. 2014, p. 509).

Sheridan et al. also use the concept of communities of practice as lens through which to analyse

makerspaces. This concept, developed by Lave and Wenger, describes how groups of people who

work in a common domain share knowledge within their chosen community (Lave and Wenger, 1991

in Sheridan et al. 2014, p. 509). According to Sheridan et al., the communities of practice framework

is particularly applicable to makerspaces because of the way learning is an ongoing part of social

interaction in these spaces, rather than a discrete activity, such as classes or lectures. The concept is

useful in that it allows all the diverse elements and activities which make up a makerspace to be

considered, helping to frame how “the shared use of space, tools, and materials; shifting teaching

and learning arrangements; individual and collective goals; and emergent documentation of rules,

protocols, and processes for participation and action work together to form each community of

practice with its own particular features.” (Sheridan et al. 2014, p. 509). Furthermore, according to

Sheridan other activities peripheral to making, such as taking walks, socialising or playing, are

“central to learning and forming a sense of community and are important to providing space and

time for idea generation.” (Sheridan et al. 2014, p. 509).

In their extensive review of “Community-based digital fabrication workshops”, Hielscher and Smith

conclude that makerspaces can have a “transformative potential” in three critical areas:

sustainability, inclusivity, and creativity (Hielscher and Smith 2014, p. 48). In addition, they present a

very useful summary of methodological lessons to be drawn from past research into makerspaces:

• Researchers need to consider the format and distribution channels when conducting

surveys.

• Researchers need to be sensitive to the diversity of workshops when considering sampling

issues and consider that some workshops prefer not to limit and specify what they do.

• A lot of discussions and debates within networks can be followed on the internet (within

forums and discussion groups), providing a wealth of information that requires an informed

strategy of data gathering and analysis to make sense of the information.

• Activities of members occur simultaneously in different spaces and through several

technological pathways, thus challenging the employment of some single site and/or single

unit of analysis social science methods.

• A lot of researchers use ethnographic methods within their research, and usually are

members of workshops themselves.

(Hielscher and Smith 2014, p. 25)

The methodologies used in the studies reviewed above do largely seem to follow this list of

recommendations.

19

4.4 Literature Review Conclusion

The literature reviewed is fairly consistent in stating that makerspaces have many potential social

benefits, but that it is difficult to study and prove these benefits. From the literature, these benefits

include: developing technological agency (Dellot 2015); encouraging recycling and sustainability

(Hielscher and Smith 2014); encouraging civic engagement (Ree 2011); work as successful learning

environments (Sheridan et al. 2014); serving as social spaces which support wellbeing, community

needs and excluded groups (Taylor, Hurley and Connolly 2016); promote learning in STEM (and

STEAM) subjects (Burke 2014); support and encourage creativity (Hielscher and Smith 2014) support

entrepreneurs and innovation (Van Holm 2015), possibly leading to “third Industrial Revolution”

(Anderson 2012). For libraries, in addition to the above benefits, it is claimed makerspace could

support libraries’ “core mission of providing equal access to knowledge resources” (Taylor, Hurley

and Connolly 2016), in addition to helping to future-proof and transform the perception of libraries

(Boyle et al. 2016; Slatter and Howard 2013).

This list of benefits will be used as an initial framework for designing the methodology, and analysing

the findings of this research, in order to ascertain whether the chosen case study makerspace

supports these benefits, and if so, to what extent.

5. Methodology

The research for this study takes the form of an instrumental case study, in which a case subject is

used as a vehicle to explore a phenomenon or theory (Pickard 2007, p. 86) – specifically

makerspaces in public libraries – which has wider relevance beyond the chosen case. A single case

study site will be selected for a “short-term, contemporary study” (Oates 2006, p. 144), in order to

gain an in-depth picture of that particular site, at that particular time. Though a comparative case

study approach would probably highlight insightful differences and similarities, it was not chosen in

order to keep the project manageable within the given timeframe. As noted by Sheridan et al., there

are no set model for makerspaces, so there is a huge diversity in how they are all organised

(Sheridan et al. 2014, p. 508), which would mean that even a comparative case study could be

inadequate to make generalisations beyond the chosen sites. It is also hoped that the implications

arising from this study can be used to form recommendations for other makerspaces, or form the

basis for further research to test against the findings.

5.1 Site Selection

From the literature review, it is clear that there are no academic studies into the number or

distribution of makerspaces in public libraries in the UK, which makes it difficult to determine the

overall size of the sample population. However, the purpose of this research isn’t necessarily to find

out how all makerspaces function, but rather to focus in-depth on what the benefits of a particular

makerspace are on its user base.

As there is no academic research or official statistics (such as inclusion in the annual CIPFA Public

Libraries Profiles) into the numbers and location of makerspaces currently established in UK public

libraries, other less authoritative sources were used. The nine public library makerspaces listed by

20

Anstice (n.d.) will be used as a starting point (nine listed as of September 2016, a further three

libraries have been added to the list once this research was already under way). It is difficult to

establish how comprehensive this list is, as the author does not explicitly state any methods for

compiling the list, and the sources given a generally reports from local newspapers, but it gives a

good indication of established makerspaces with an online presence. In addition to the nine libraries

listed by Anstice, I have included the makerspace at Barking Library and Learning Centre, who I was

made aware of through a presentation by the DigiLab team at the SCL’s Code Green Digital Making

event in March 2016 (SCL 2016 and DigiLab 2016b).

The case study site will be selected by purposive sampling, based partly on convenience but

primarily on suitability of providing an information rich example. Purposive sampling is an

appropriate method in this research for two reasons, as outlined by Oates (2006, pp. 97 -98):

because not enough is known about the overall population to be able to use probability-based

methods, and because an in depth picture rather than generalisations are being sought. As Pickard

notes, as a general rule in qualitative research, purposive sampling methods tend to be more

appropriate than statistical probability based methods in selecting cases (Pickard 2007, p. 59). This is

because the purpose of sampling in qualitative research tends to be descriptive – what you can learn

from the chosen case – rather than what you can infer about the wider population from the findings.

The following criteria will be used to select the site:

• associated with a public library (situated in same building, funded or staffed by the

library)

• to be reasonably established, and up and running (for more than six months)

• feature a range tools and equipment (at least 2 types of making activity)

• allow free or low-cost hands-on (i.e. not just a bureau service) access to members of the

public

• accessible for the researcher (from the Thames Valley area)

In order to establish whether the ten locations meet this criteria, the following information will be

sought: location, library authority associated with, date established, outline of equipment and

facilities available. This information will be sought from the library/local authority websites,

individual makerspace websites, and local media reports. See Table 1. (below) for a comparison of

these selection criteria.

The level of information available online about each makerspace varies greatly – whether they have

their own website, or if it is part of the library or council website, or whether they are mentioned at

all. For some of the sites, I had to rely on social media posts and local news articles to find any

information.

Of the ten locations, there are three sites which meet the case study selection criteria: DigiLab at

Barking Learning Centre, FabLab Devon at Exeter Library and the Enterprise + Innovation Hub at

Ipswich County Library. Barking DigiLab was the most easily accessible location, so the organisers

were contacted by email (see appendix 9.3) and they agreed to participate in the study – so Barking

DigiLab became the case study site.

21

Table 1. Case study site selection: comparison of public library makerspaces

Library authority Location Name of

makerspace Facilities and equipment Date established Sources Notes

Cardiff Cardiff Central Library Hub

Digital Floor tablet bar, digital wall, digital creative suite, children’s media zone, gaming area and a 3D printer

July 2015 Taylor 2015

Croydon, Ealing, Hounslow and Harrow boroughs

Northolt Library Creative Work Spaces

Under consultation with local groups about

not yet established - not clear if project still happening

Pekacar 2015 Library services in these four boroughs operated by Carillion Cultural Community Solutions

Devon County Council Exeter Library FabLab Devon

3D printing, 3D scanning, digital embroidery, laser cutting, vinyl cutting, large format printing, soldering, Raspberry Pi, t-shirt making

May 2014 FabLab Devon (n.d.)

Dundee City Council Dundee Central Library

- 3D printing May 2014 Robertson 2016, p. 5

Essex County Council library service

Colchester The Waiting Room

Screen printing and letter pressing, kiln, kitchen, photography darkroom, textiles, wood and metal workshop

August 2013 Naylor 2013, Waiting Room (n.d.)

Not within a library, but an independent space in an old bus station, working in partnership with library service. Described as an “integrated library-hack-makerspace”

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham

Barking Learning Centre

DigiLab 3D Printing, Drones, Programmable Robotics, Gaming Tournament, Virtual Reality Headsets, Computer Gesture Control, Robot Wars Tournament

March 2016 DigiLab 2016a, Shales 2016

22

Library authority Location Name of

makerspace Facilities and equipment Date established Sources Notes

Manchester City Council Manchester Central Library

The Media Lounge

Adobe Creative Suite on Macs and PCs, games consoles. Demonstrator service for businesses - free workshops showcasing videoconferencing, 3D printing and other technologies

March 2014 Manchester City Council (n.d.)

Staffordshire County Council

Stafford Library Innovation Suite

3D printing, Raspberry Pi August 2015 BBC 2015

Stirling Council Mobile – multiple locations

Mobile Maker Space

3D printing and scanning, 3Doodler printing pens, video cameras, drone

August 2015 Anstice (n.d.), Stirling Council (n.d.)

Suffolk Libraries Ipswich County Library

Enterprise + Innovation Hub

3D printing, digital embroidery, Raspberry Pi

June 2015 Suffolk Libraries (n.d.)

23

5.2 Data Collection

Interviewing was chosen as the most appropriate primary data collection method for this research.

As Oates points out, interviews are much used in case studies, such as this project. She states that

suitable for situations where a researcher wants to obtain detailed information; ask questions that

are complex, or open-ended; or explore emotions, experiences or feelings that cannot be easily

observed via pre-set questionnaires (Oates 2006, p. 187). This last point is particularly pertinent, as

this study aims to find evidence of intangible benefits such as increased self-confidence.

As Oates states, there are three main types of interview approach: structured, semi-structured and

unstructured (Oates 2006, pp. 187 – 188). A semi-structured interview approach was taken, which

Oates describes as having a list of themes to be covered and questions you want to ask, but allowing

the order to change or for new questions to be asked depending on the flow of the conversation,

and unexpected issues being raised by the interviewee (Oates 2006, p. 188). Semi-structured

interviews are appropriate in this context because they allow for a large degree of interaction and

flexibility, whilst still allowing the research to guide the interview in seeking answers to the research

questions. The interviews were intended to be primarily exploratory, with the type of data needed

to be gathered being opinion rather than fact based, in order to help build a picture of how

individuals feel they benefit from using the makerspace. Though a reasonable picture of likely social

benefits of makerspaces had been gathered from the literature review, the purpose of this research

is not necessarily to establish to what extent the case study site fits in with pre-existing models, but

also to allow the participants the opportunity to express their own feelings, opinions and

experiences.

In designing the interview schedule, Pickard recommends that “thematising” is carried out first –

that is establishing what the purpose of the research is, and what topics and themes are being

investigated (Pickard 2007, p. 173). The overall purpose of this research is to investigate how a

makerspace can benefit its users, and the main potential benefits identified from the literature

review included: creativity, enterprise, inclusivity, learning, self-fulfilment and sustainability.

These formed the focus of the interview schedule, in attempting to find evidence of these categories

from the interview, however the overall structure of the questions was based on more generic

themes. These were: Basic information about the space; Personal information about the

interviewee; Organisational information about DigiLab; Users and Community; Planning and

Marketing. These were based on those employed by Taylor, Hurley and Connolly, who asked

interviewees about “the history, motivations and ambitions of the facility, its user base, typical

activities, promotion and outreach” (Taylor, Hurley and Connolly 2016, p. 3). The schedule was

intended to be used to guide the interview, providing a logical sequence and set of prompts, but

without being overly rigid.

These generic categories were chosen as the structure rather than the list of benefits, as they are

more open, and provide the interviewees with the opportunity to explain the benefits in their own

terms, rather than lead them towards pre-determined responses. The potential benefits would later

be used as the initial basis of the coding scheme to analyse the interview findings.

See Table 2. below for the full interview schedule.

24

Table 2. Semi-structured interview guide

Basic information about the space

• How long has DigiLab been established?

• Where in the library is it situated?

• What equipment and facilities do you host?

• Opening hours?

Personal information about the interviewee

• What is your role in DigiLab?

• How long have you been involved?

• What first attracted you to the idea?

Organisational information about DigiLab

• How many people visit your makerspace?

• How do people access the makerspace? E.g. membership, drop-in, bookable workshops/classes, off-site events

• How do you charge? How much/what for?

• How many staff/volunteers involved?

• How closely linked to the rest of the library service?

• How is your makerspace funded?

Users and community

• What do people make? Examples of current projects

• What do you feel attracts users to this makerspace?

• Do you target/cater for particular audiences?

• Did the local conditions in Barking have any influence on decisions in DigiLab?

• Some of the common benefits people mention when talking about makerspaces are: Supporting creativity, supporting learning, supporting enterprise/innovation, encouraging inclusivity, encouraging sustainability/recycling and self-fulfilment. Do you agree with these? Would you add anything else to the list?

Planning and marketing

• How do you measure your success? E.g. do you keep any stats, perform surveys

• How do you promote the makerspace/attract new users?

• Challenges and difficulties

• Future plans

• What do you see for the future of libraries?

It should be noted that the questions in the first section, basic information about the space, were

not necessarily intended to be answered by the interviewees, as they could be found from other

sources or from my own direct observation when visiting the space.

As I had little prior knowledge of the membership or organisation of DigiLab, the selection of the

participants was largely down to the DigiLab organiser. This approach did risk potential bias in the

selection, or a low response rate, but it was hoped that subsequent interviews would be able to be

arranged after the initial contact. I requested interviews with three to five people, listing as example

organisers, volunteers or library staff, and stated they needed to be aged over 18. Though children

25

and teenagers are one of the key audiences of DigiLab, only participants over the age of 18 could be

interviewed, in order to avoid ethical complications. Information about how under-18s use DigiLab

was sought indirectly from the interviewees.

Information sheets and consent forms (see appendices 9.5 and 9.6) were distributed to participants

a few weeks before the site visit, with further hard copies brought on the day of the site visit. The

forms detailed what the purpose of the project was, why DigiLab had been chosen, and exactly what

be involved if they agreed to participate. It was made clear that participation was entirely voluntary,

they could change their mind at any time without penalty. The form also asks whether participants

were willing to be identified by their name, or only by their role/job title.

On the day of the site visit two interviews were conducted, one with the DigiLab founder/organiser,

and one with a member/volunteer. Unfortunately, no other members were available on the day.

Further skype interviews were offered with two other members, but we were unable to agree on

mutually suitable time.

The interviews were recorded using a mobile phone, with notes were taken during the interviews.

The audio files of the interviews were later transcribed. Field notes and photographs of the space,

equipment and some of the projects were also taken during the tour of the DigiLab. It should be

noted that in the transcripts, any other individuals mentioned who did not consent to participate are

identified by their initials only.

5.3 Data Analysis

Thematic coding was used to analyse the transcribed interviews. The initial list of themes – the list

potential benefits deduced from the literature review – was used to go through the transcripts and

categorise sections relevant to those particular themes. More themes were added as they emerged

from the interview transcripts. This thematic coding forms the basis for deriving the most important

aspects of the interviews, which emerged to be creativity, enterprise, learning and self-fulfilment.

These benefits will then be used to analyse the findings, and link them back to the theory.

There are many different characteristics, activities and outcomes which would serve as possible

indicators of these benefits, see Table 3. below:

Table 3. Potential indicators of makerspace benefits

Benefit Potential indicators

Creativity art projects; mash-ups; original projects; interdisciplinary work; supporting artists and creatives (e.g. through facilities, skills, networking); encouraging creative thinking

Enterprise supporting entrepreneurs and start-ups; business advice; IP advice; bureau manufacturing services; supporting inventors; commercial services

Learning new skills; courses, workshops or formal learning; links to schools, colleges or universities; induction courses; informal and peer learning

Self-fulfilment achieving personal goals; socialising; gaining new social skills; supporting mental health; tackling loneliness; improving employability

26

6. DigiLab site visit results

I visited Barking DigiLab, was taken on a tour of the facilities by the DigiLab founder and organiser

Seun Oshinaike, then conducted two 30 minute interviews – the first with DigiLab member and

volunteer Ayo Arigbabu, and the second with Seun.

The space is run on behalf of the library be the social enterprise Brighter Steppings. Seun Oshinaike

is the co-founder of Brighter Steppings, and founder and organiser of the DigiLab space. As part of

their arrangement with the library, Seun is able to use the DigiLab space as an office for the Brighter

Steppings team when it is not open to the public. Brighter Steppings had previously worked with

Barking Library to produce an app, and in late 2015 decided to work together to open a makerspace

in the library. The original DigiLab opened in March 2016, in an empty room which had previously

been used as a council one-stop-shop on the ground floor of the library. The DigiLab team converted

the empty room into a fully functioning makerspace. DigiLab was very rapidly outgrowing its original

site, so when another area in the library became available they also converted that, and official re-

launched their new in October 2016, with a space which is about twice the size of the original. The

new DigiLab also includes separate rooms for a YouTube recording studio, and VR experience room.

6.1 Tour of DigiLab

Barking Learning Centre is a multi-purpose building, providing access to learning facilities and council

services. The library, split over two floors, is the central component of the building, with classrooms,

a job shop, a café, art gallery and DigiLab all accessed via the library.

DigiLab is on the ground floor of Barking Library and Learning Centre, in a series of rooms in the far

corner of the library, next to some adult learning classrooms. DigiLab signage is prominently visible

above the entrance to the space (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. DigiLab entrance (Source: DigiLab 2016c)

27

I visited DigiLab at about 10am on a weekday morning, during which it was closed to the public (it

opens at 2pm on a weekday). They had hosted an event the previous evening, so there was left-over

food and drinks packets in the seating main area, and there was evidence of lots of ongoing projects

dotted around the space – this added to the first impression of being quite a sociable space, despite

there not being anyone using it at the time.

From within the library, the new location is not quite as visible as the previous location, which could

be seen from the entrance to the building. However, there are glass walls on three sides, so DigiLab

and all its equipment is clearly visible from the outside of the building. Seun explained that he has

plans to create an entrance directly into DigiLab from the outside, which would allow people to

enter the future shop area of DigiLab.

Figure 2. DigiLab floorplan (not to scale) (Source: London Borough of Barking & Dagenham 2016) [annotations and internal partitions added]

Inside, DigiLab is divided into various spaces (see Figure 2). The overall size of the space is

approximately 6m x 12m. The main area at the entrance has low multipurpose tables, chairs and

beanbags for events and socialising (see Figure 3). Seun explained that the layout of the space would

be continually evolving – the team had designed and built most of the furniture themselves, so

would be able to change and adapt as new projects or equipment are introduced. They also keep

lots of old unwanted electrical equipment (from the library, council and elsewhere), which get

stripped and recycled for components in other projects.

28

Figure 3. DigiLab main area

It also contains the DigiLab “D” – a big blue wooden D built by the team which people can sit in (see

Figure 4). The D serves as a gaming station, with two PS4 consoles, screens and controllers. Seun

explained he was planning on establishing a network of DigiLabs, after other public libraries in the

UK had approached him wanting to host similar spaces. He described how all of the DigiLabs in the

network would have a big blue D like this one, which he hopes will serve as an instantly recognisable

trademark for DigiLabs.

Figure 4. DigiLab big "D"

29

To the side of the main area are two rooms – a YouTube Room and a Virtual Reality (VR) Room (see

Figure 5). The YouTube Room has professional level video equipment – cameras, microphones,

tripods, lighting stands and reflectors, live preview monitor and a green screen backdrop. There is

also comfortable seating and emoticon cushion props. The VR Room contains a powerful gaming PC

with VR headset, and gesture controllers. The VR room also houses the large-scale 3D printer.

Figure 5. VR room and 3D printer (foreground) and YouTube room (background)

At the other end of the main space there is a desk area with several Mac computers and space for

laptops, used for programming, 3D modelling and game designing, and benches for electronics and

assembly (see Figure 6). There is also the second 3D printer in this area.

Figure 6. Bench space used for electronics. Future shop area in background

30

In the far corner of DigiLab, next to the bench area is a large empty space currently being used for

storage, but where Seun plans to create a shop. They are applying for planning permission to create

an entrance directly from the street into the DigiLab shop, which would increase the accessibility

and prominence of DigiLab in the local area. The shop would sell gadgets, as well as products

developed and manufactured by DigiLab members. Above the YouTube and VR rooms there is an

empty double height space, which Seun and Ayo have earmarked for future expansion – potentially

for housing more sophisticated manufacturing equipment such as laser cutters or CNC mills, or as

co-working office space to hire out to local start-ups.

Equipment and Activities

The equipment hosted at DigiLab, which I saw or discussed in the interviews includes: two 3D

printers, 3D scanner, two PlayStation 4 consoles, VR headset and gaming PC, multiple PCs and Macs,

soldering equipment, two drones, programmable robotics, Lego Mindstorms kits, Raspberry Pis, Anki

Overdrive racing cars and track, YouTube recording studio, various power tools.

Organised classes and activities hosted by DigiLab include: Code Club, YouTube Club, 3D design and

printing classes, Raspberry Pi classes, gaming tournaments (including girls’ only gaming

tournaments), Robot Wars events, game jams, board game club, and hosting the East London

Raspberry Pi Jam.

Opening hours

DigiLab is closed to the public on weekday morning, then opens at 2pm-7pm, getting at its busiest

after school and on Saturdays.

6.2 Interviews

Interviews were carried out with two participants – Seun Oshinaike and Ayo Arigbabu. For full

interview transcripts, see appendix 9.4.

The interviews were quite free-flowing, only loosely following the interview schedule, perhaps closer

to an unstructured interview than originally intended. This made for a very open conversation, with

much information and interesting detail offered by the interviewees, covering some areas which I

had not anticipated when planning the interview. The interview questions were referred back to at

moments when a particular line of conversation came to an end, though many of the topics were

brought up by the interviewees without the question being explicitly asked. However, this approach

meant that some important questions from the schedule were left out, in particular questions about

statistics and measuring performance.

Personal Information

Seun is the founder and main organiser of the DigiLab space, and has been involved with the Barking

Library with other projects since before the launch of DigiLab in March 2016.

31

Ayo is a member and volunteer at DigiLab, who describes himself as the “Architect in Residence”. As

a qualified architect, this role includes space planning for DigiLab, but more broadly as building

“opportunities for innovation” within the space. He has been involved with DigiLab for about three

months, and uses the space to work on his own creative projects, as well as being involved in

running classes, working on project teams, and informally mentoring other users.

Organisational information

Access and charging

There is a membership scheme, which costs £5 a month, which gives people access to most of the

equipment and facilities, including the YouTube room (as long as they have been trained to use the

equipment). The VR experience is charged separately (£2 for 20 minutes), which is “ridiculously

cheap” compared to the “not so cool Oculus” VR experience at Stratford Westfield shopping centre.

Classes, such as Code Club sessions, are also charged separately (£5 per session).

The proportion of people who are members regularly attend to work on their own projects, and

those who just attend classes is “very mixed”.

Links to the library service

I got the impression that DigiLab is fairly independent from the library service. Seun mentioned that

“some of the library staff do get involved here, like help us out with maybe some of the social media

stuff, or just designing flyers, they do get involved” – which sounds as if some staff take a personal

interest, but there is not a formal working partnership.

This does give DigiLab a large degree of flexibility:

“We’re partners with the library, but we’re the ones responsible for it, we have that

flexibility. I guess the disadvantage of other places is that, if they, whoever is running the

space doesn’t have that flexibility to make the call and things, then they’re not, they need to

be able to move and develop faster, and to be able to take more risks, and see what’s going

to work, what’s not going to work.”

Though they may not necessarily work closely, Ayo suggested that the proximity to the library made

DigiLab “unique”:

“Because, if DigiLab was just in some building, somewhere, that kind of connection wouldn’t

be, it wouldn’t happen so quickly, you know, you have to come and have a meeting. Here

you don’t have to have a formal meeting per se - somebody from the library is going to stroll

in, while you’re, you know, joining some wires and then they’re going to ask you “What are

doing?” and then by the time you’ve explained, they’re thinking “But we can use this for...”

And then a conversation starts, and, you know, something interesting happens.”

The partnership with the library, and by extension the borough, has already provided DigiLab with

several opportunities “for projects to go live”. For example Ayo has had a major project he started at

DigiLab – an interactive storytelling installation – being commissioned to be hosted by the library.

32

How is DigiLab funded?

DigiLab received initial seed funding from the library to all the building materials and some of the

equipment, but beyond that they don’t receive any funding. Interestingly, the library does not

charge DigiLab rent for the space – this would not necessarily be the position taken by other library

authorities. Because they don’t pay rent, the costs of running the DigiLab are fairly low, and they are

able to make enough money from charging for membership and courses.

Users and community

Do you target or cater for particular audiences?

I received a mixed response to this question. On the one hand, it was fairly clear that the main user

group was children, teenagers and young people. Both interviewees made repeated references to

“young people”, “teenagers” and “kids”, with much less reference to “adults”, and many of the

classes and clubs they offer are aimed at children.

However, when asked directly if there was a focus on young people and teenagers, Ayo stated that it

was open to anyone, with a mix of adults and young people. He used himself as an example of an

adult using the space for “serious stuff”, but said that the “kids are prominent because whenever

they are in the space they make noise, and, you know they run around”. His first impression when

walking into the very first time was seeing “young kids, you know, lounging on bean bags” and

thinking “this looks more like teaching kids how to code and that kind of stuff”, but was not put off

because he had a strong interest in makerspaces. It is likely however, that other adults perhaps

would be put off by that. He went on to say that “the mix is good”, and found working alongside fun

and enriching: “their excitement rubs off on you, and then the fact that you find out that there’s

some things that they don’t know, and then you’re telling them, and you see their eyes light up

when you pass on that information.” Teaching also works in the other direction, with the young

people being able to pick up new information much quicker than him, and help when he gets stuck.

Seun gave the example of their oldest member of Code Club being an 83-year-old man, with most of

the other members being young children.

“And the oldest person we have in the Code Club is 83. An 83-year-old man, which is very

brave of him, learning how to code. And yeah, he enjoys it.”

However, when asked if DigiLab would consider opportunities to work with older people, in a similar

vein to the Men’s Shed organisation, Seun did not categorically rule it out, but stated that: “I

wouldn’t say no to it, but me personally I would say no because I simply don’t have the time for it.”

What do people make? Examples of current projects

Numerous different projects and objects were mentioned throughout the tour and interviews. These

ranged from simple projects that were produced as part of courses and clubs – such as 3D printed

houses, videos from the YouTube club or video games produced using simple coding software such

as Scratch – to complex commissioned projects on behalf of the council. Below are some example

projects:

• Group project: a group of 9 – 12 year olds designed and built an autonomous robot (see

Figure 7), which uses sensors to detect obstacles and change direction accordingly. The

33

group worked together over several weeks to come up with the design the robot, connect

the components, write the code for the Arduino control board, test and iteratively de-bug

problems until it robot worked as planned. The project’s progress was published through all

DigiLab’s social media outlets.

Figure 7. Autonomous robot produced by a team of 9 - 12 year olds

• Retail items: the Lollicopter (see Figure 8) is a DIY helicopter kit designed by a 14-year-old

member, with advice from Seun and other DigiLab members. Inspired by Ikea flat-pack

furniture, it contains a set of instructions, an electric motor and components, and is

assembled by using day-to-day household items such as drinks bottles and lollipop sticks.

The parts cost £2-£4, and the item will be sold online and in DigiLab for £9.99, with the 14-

year-old designer receiving half the takings. It has been featured in the local press, with the

boy’s stating that the experience of DigiLab has had big impact on him: “He was very shy,

but now he’s a different boy altogether now, he’s got the confidence wow factor” (Cooke

2016).

Figure 8. "Lollicopter" retail product (Source DigiLab 2016d)

34

• Commissioned projects: There were several projects which had been commissioned by the

council or the library, which DigiLab members have been paid to produce. Commissioned

projects are worked on by “Digital Avengers” – a pool of DigiLab members, of all ages with a

variety of skills, who work to produce commercial solutions for problems, and receive a 70%

share of any profit made from commissions. For example, a team of “Digital Avengers” were

currently working on a project to encourage recycling in the borough by gamifying it – they

were designing prototypes for low cost weight sensors to be added to recycling bins, which

will connect to an app that would allow streets to compete against each other over who

recycled the most. Another example given by Ayo was J, a 15-year-old who got to design a

licence plate reader for the council: “we have a service ready that can be deployed across

the borough, you know, wherever it is that the council wants to monitor parking […] even if J

gets just £50 for doing it, you know, the fact that his work is what’s being used around the

county, is really good for his CV.”

• WorldPay Hackathon competition: Seun, Ayo, a 13 and a 15-year-old members took part as

the youngest team in a Hackathon sponsored by multinational payment processing company

WorldPay. Though they did not win, the organisers were so impressed by their work that

they created a special third prize especially for them, invited the team to their offices in

London for a demo day, and will be sponsoring future projects at DigiLab. Ayo said that the

recognition for their work gave the teenagers “rockstar status” and was a “major boost to

their confidence” and “further down the line they’re going to come back to that kind of

experience, that what, what made them have that determination to succeed in tech.”

What do you feel attracts users to this makerspace?

According to Seun, the main driver for attracting people to the space is curiosity – people seeing the

space, and the library being an accessible location where people feel comfortable to come in and ask

what DigiLab is. This was demonstrated in Ayo’s account of how he first became aware of DigiLab:

“I just came into the library, and I walked down and I saw DigiLab, and I was like “What’s

DigiLab?” This is the kind of stuff I’m interested in, and I go to lots of spaces, makerspaces

and all that. So, I was like “I never knew something like this existed. What do they do?” it

wasn’t very clear, so I walked in.”

On entering the space, Ayo’s very first conversation with Seun rapidly moved to a serious discussion

about what projects he was working on, and how DigiLab could help support him – Ay said that

thinks that “is the experience for most other people too.”

Seun elaborated that curiosity is “like our filtration system”. There are certain influential members,

“ones that are really key at doing lots of things here”, who are “clever enough to only invite certain

type of people”. Seun stated that “I mean to me, there’s no point trying to force someone that

doesn’t have, like, an interest into the space.” Though this process of self-selection is probably

mostly a positive way of recruiting engaged members, there is a risk of excluding people who don’t

know they have a pre-existing interest in technology.

35

Did the local conditions in Barking have any influence on decisions in DigiLab?

Asked whether people would have access to similar facilities in the local area, Ayo responded that

there are lots of spaces like DigiLab, but closer to central London, especially Hackney and Shoreditch.

Locally, the only alternatives would be in schools and universities, but Ayo said that they are “kind of

corralled off, and they’re like for when you are having classes, or somebody’s doing a training, you

know, it’s not open access”. DigiLab offers a very different experience to that, with no curriculum,

and “nobody looking over your shoulder saying “you must do this, you must do that””.

Planning and marketing

How do you promote the DigiLab and attract new users?

Word of mouth is the main way people here about the space, but DigiLab is also very active on social

media, where “people come across [DigiLab] o there naturally”, with almost daily posts on

Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube

Challenges and difficulties

Seun discussed several different challenges which they face, which were primarily: getting others to

understand what the benefits of DigiLab are; and money and time pressures of running the space.

He described their “biggest challenge” as getting parents in particular to understand that the

activities their children are doing are of value: “No, they’re not just playing a game, they are actually

learning.” He feels that parents do not understand the informal learning, asking for the “learning

pattern”. He also suspects that parents wouldn’t ask the same questions of a teacher, as they would

“automatically give them that trust.”

The other issue raised repeatedly was that of financial sustainability, and juggling other

commitments:

“We can’t do everything for free, all the time, which is how we’re running the space. Which

we don’t mind, but there’s like, there’s a limit to how far we’re all going to stretch ourselves,

to keep doing that”

The time he and the other volunteers puts in is largely unpaid, and they all have to fit full-time jobs

or school around running DigiLab, in order to “pay the rent”. There does seem to be an expectation

for DigiLab to provide their services for free, within Barking Library and also in the project to support

other libraries set up a DigiLab network, and it is sometimes a challenge to “force [himself] to be

more rigid”. It is unclear why there is this expectation – perhaps it is down to the library setting, or

perhaps because DigiLabs is run as a social enterprise. Seun suggested it was quite difficult working

with libraries because “at the end of the day they don’t have a lot of money”, but then reconsidered,

and suggested that to a certain extent they do, but: “it’s just that they’re choosing to spend it in the

wrong places. So, if you’re still spending time buying more books, buying more DVDs and CDs, it’s a

stupid waste of money.” This may be a controversial viewpoint, but does reflect some of the

arguments from the literature review about libraries needing to re-define themselves.

36

Future plans

A primary motivation for DigiLab’s future plans is in order to ensure its long term sustainability, and

counter some of the challenges mentioned above. The ways Seun envisioned doing this was through

corporate sponsorships, seeking more paid work for the Digital Avengers, and establishing the

network of DigiLabs (which would involve paid consultancy). Seun hoped that pursuing these

avenues should “take off a tiny bit of pressure”.

Their other plans were to expand the space, in order to meet future demand. As mentioned earlier,

these plans involve opening a shop (with direct access from the street) and expanding into the

empty void space above the YouTube and VR rooms, or possibly in another building in Barking. Ayo

said that evidence that there was increasing demand for DigiLab was that they had outgrown their

previous space in just six months, and claimed that “clearly in six months’ time the [current] space

will feel choked”. He has plans, dependant on accessing funding, to “up the whole making thing,

with more 3D printers, and CNC cutters, and laser printers”.

Asked whether their future space would still be in the library, Ayo said it would “make a lot of sense”

for it to stay in the library, or at least keep a “presence in the library”, which would perhaps focus on

activities for kids, with another site within walking distance to which “teenagers and adults can

graduate into”.

7. Conclusions

The main aim of this study is to assess the possible social impact of makerspaces on their users and

community. The claims made for the social benefits of makerspaces which were found in the

literature review will be used as the basis discussing the research findings. Specifically, these were

supporting and encouraging: creativity, enterprise, learning and self-fulfilment. There was evidenc

that all four of these were supported to some extent.

DigiLab is a huge enabler of creativity in many forms, by creating “opportunities for innovation”, as

phrased by Ayo. This is achieved in a variety of ways. Not only are powerful tools provided, such as

game development software, but training on how to understand and master the processes behind

them are offered. This take the shape of both formal courses, and informal gatherings, such as the

monthly game jams.

Another possible element of what makes DigiLab a creative space is that it is situated in a library.

The openness and accessibility of libraries means people feel comfortable to “stroll in” to DigiLab

and start asking questions, and becoming inspired. This ease of access allows for serendipitous

encounters which would not be so easy in a less public location.

Inter-disciplinarity plays a key role in supporting creativity. The mixture of people with some

common interests, such as playing PlayStation, but with varied skills allows for a cross pollination.

For example Ayo, who considers himself as having a creative background has picked up knowledge in

hardware development from other members. Conversely, a 15-year-old member who had

considered himself only as a “core programming kind of person” has been introduced by Ayo into

game development, and from that started “immersing himself in the world of storytelling”, and

started seeing connections between coding and creativity. This would seem to be evidence that

37

DigiLab can help people become more confident in their creative abilities, by seeing that the

problem solving involved in technology is a creative process.

There was a very strong emphasis on entrepreneurship throughout the discussions, with DigiLab

members being encouraged to use the skills they learn to make money in various ways, such as by

designing items to sell in the shop, or becoming a Digital Avenger. Ayo claimed that DigiLab is able to

provide an agile and low cost way of solving problems, and that the council were interested in

investing in them to act “like an extension of their IT department”. However, it is unclear to what

extent these initiatives would have truly commercial success, or if they aimed more as a means of

confidence building or CV enhancing.

There was evidence of a variety of informal learning practices employed in DigiLab. There appears to

be a lot of peer-based learning, with people “skilling up informally, by rubbing off each other”, as

described by Ayo. Tellingly, activities such as playing on games consoles play a key part in the

learning arrangements of the space. Ayo described how the PS4 acts as an entry point into DigiLab –

young people come to play on the console, but then start asking questions about what other people

are working on. Then, as they start learning about game development, they start understanding the

game mechanics when playing the PS4, and start asking questions like “How did they code that?”

“How can I do that in my own game?” This strongly corresponds to the aspect of “legitimate

peripheral participation” from the communities of practice model, which Willet describes as the

“ways learners join a community of practice on the periphery and gradually move toward the center

of the community as they become involved in the practices of that community” (Willet 2016, p. 317).

Perhaps more than anything, DigiLab is a highly social space, which encourages people to develop

and fulfil personal goals. Self-fulfilment is necessarily an explicit aim of the space, but supporting

people in the other aspects discussed above – creativity, enterprise and learning – all play towards

helping people build confidence.

Based on the research carried out, there does seem to be evidence to support the claims that

makerspaces can benefit their users in several ways, namely supporting creativity, enterprise,

learning and self-fulfilment. Moreover, the library setting does seem to make the technology more

accessible to a wider audience, and provide a possible solution for the problem of accessibility

highlighted by Taylor, Hurley and Connolly (2016, p. 1). Though specific to the context of Barking

DigiLab, the findings should be encouraging for practitioners seeking to establish makerspaces in

public libraries, and could serve as the basis for further research and advocacy.

Given the limitations of the small scale of this project, further research into this area would be useful

for researchers and practitioners. Specifically, a longitudinal case study tracking the various impact

indicators over the course of several months would help give a clearer picture of how long-term

benefits of library makerspaces for users. Additionally, research into the current extent of library

makerspaces, taking a similar approach to the Open Workshop Network online map (Corbin 2016) or

Nesta’s Open dataset of UK makerspaces (Sleigh, Stewart and Stokes 2015a). This would help to

identify what working models have been put in place, and allow networking opportunities between

makerspaces.

38

8. References

Anderson, C. (2012) Makers: the new industrial revolution. London: Random House Business.

Anderson, C. (2013) "The Maker Movement: Tangible Goods Emerge From Ones and Zeros", Wired,

16 April 2013. Available from: https://www.wired.com/2013/04/makermovement/ [accessed 04

January 2017]

Anstice, I. (n.d.) “3D Printers and Maker Spaces in Libraries”, Public Libraries News. Available from:

http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/practitioners/3d-printers-and-maker-spaces-in-libraries

[accessed 04 January 2017]

Artefacto (n.d.) Library Makers [website]. Available at: http://librarymakers.net/ [accessed 04

January 2017]

Barniskis, S. (2016) “Access and Express: Professional Perspectives on Public Library Makerspaces

and Intellectual Freedom”, Public Library Quarterly, 35(2), pp. 103 - 125, Available from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2016.1198644 [accessed 04 January 2017]

BBC (2015) “New £1m Stafford library offers access to 3D printing”, BBC News, 09 September 2015. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-34187495 [accessed 04 January 2017]

BBC (2016) “Libraries lose a quarter of staff as hundreds close”, BBC News, 29 March 2016. Available

from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35707956 [accessed 04 January 2017]

BBC Data Unit (2016) Library cuts: closures, volunteer numbers and staff cuts, 29 March 2016.

Available from: https://github.com/BBC-Data-Unit/libraries.git [accessed 04 January 2017]

Bowler, L. (2014) “Creativity Through “Maker” Experiences and Design Thinking in the Education of

Librarians”, Knowledge Quest, 42(5), pp. 58 - 61. Accessed via: http://0-

search.ebscohost.com.wam.city.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=95795522&site=ehost-

live [accessed 04 January 2017]

Boyle, E. et al. (2016) “Making the case for creative spaces in Australian libraries”, The Australian

Library Journal, 65(1), pp. 30 - 40. Available from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2016.1125756 [accessed 04 January 2017]

Brady, T. et al. (2014) “MakeAbility: Creating Accessible Makerspace Events in a Public Library”,

Public Library Quarterly, 33(4), pp. 330 - 347. Available from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01616846.2014.970425 [accessed 04 January 2017]

Britton, L. and Considine, S. (2012) “The Makings of Maker Spaces”, Library Journal, 137(16), pp. 27 –

n/a. Accessed via: http://0-search.proquest.com.wam.city.ac.uk/docview/1142277530 [accessed 04

January 2017]

Burke, J. (2014) Makerspaces: a practical guide for librarians. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &

Littlefield.

39

Canino-Fluit, A. (2014). “School library maker spaces: Making it up as I go”, Teacher Librarian, 41(5),

pp. 21 - 27. Accessed via: http://0-

search.ebscohost.com.wam.city.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=96678450&site=ehost-

live [accessed 04 January 2017]

Carr, A. et al. (2016) “Discovery & Making in the Library: Two Specialized Spaces in Austin

Community College Libraries”, Texas Library Journal, 92(3), pp. 75 - 76. Accessed via: http://0-

search.ebscohost.com.wam.city.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=118782849&site=ehost-

live [accessed 04 January 2017]

Cavalcanti, G. (2013) “Is it a Hackerspace, Makerspace, TechShop, or FabLab?”, Make:, 22 May 2013.

Available from: http://makezine.com/2013/05/22/the-difference-between-hackerspaces-

makerspaces-techshops-and-fablabs/ [accessed 04 January 2017]

CIPFA (2015) “Library funding cut by £50m”, The Chartered Institute of Public Finance &

Accountancy, 09 December 2015. Available from: http://www.cipfa.org/about-cipfa/press-

office/archived-press-releases/2015-press-releases/library-funding-cut-by-%C2%A350m [accessed

04 January 2017]

Cooke, R. (2016) “Barking teen, 14, designs ‘lollicopter’ – a helicopter made from plastic bottle”,

Barking and Dagenham Post, 12 December 2016. Available at:

http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/barking_teen_14_designs_lollicopter_a_helicopt

er_made_from_plastic_bottle_1_4814079 [accessed 04 January 2017]

Corbin, L. (n.d) Open Workshop Network [website]. Available at: http://openworkshopnetwork.com/

[accessed 04 January 2017]

Corbin, L. (2016) “The Open Workshop Network”, Institute of Making. Available from:

http://www.instituteofmaking.org.uk/research/the-open-workshop-network [accessed 04 January

2017]

Craddock, I. (2015) “Makers on the move: a mobile makerspace at a comprehensive public high

school”, Library Hi Tech, 33(4), pp. 497 - 504. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-05-

2015-0056 [accessed 04 January 2017]

Daley, M. and Child, J. (2015) “Makerspaces in the school library environment”, Access, 29(1), pp. 42

- 49. Accessed via: http://0-

search.ebscohost.com.wam.city.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=101895199&site=ehost-

live [accessed 04 January 2017]

de Boer, J. (2015) “The business case of FryskLab, Europe’s first mobile library FabLab”, Library Hi

Tech, 33(4), pp. 505 - 518. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2015-0059 [accessed 04

January 2017]

Dellot, B. (2015) Ours to Master: How makerspaces can help us master technology for a more human

end. London: RSA. Available from:

https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsaj3881_ours_to_master_report_11.15_web.pd

f [accessed 04 January 2017]

40

DigiLab (2016a) “About Us”, DigiLab [website]. Available at: http://www.digilabhub.co.uk/ [accessed 04 January 2017]

DigiLab (2016b) DigiLab Presentation at #CodeGreen Clapham library 1of5 [video]. Available from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7znKSY9oEIU [accessed 04 January 2017]

DigiLab (2016c) Today at DigiLab [still from video]. Available from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fvBFSOOe0o [accessed 04 January 2017]

DigiLab (2016d) Lollicopter. Available from:

https://docs.google.com/a/brightersteppings.co.uk/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdBRsGMMoGCm-c835G-

BckjEE2_u-YZp7ekLw45FJPRzCOemw/viewform [accessed 04 January 2017]

Dixon, N. and Ward, M. (2014) “The maker movement and the Louisville Free Public Library”,

Reference & User Services Quarterly, 54(1), pp. 17 - 19. Available from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/rusq.54n1.17 [accessed 04 January 2017]

Dougherty, D. (2012) “The Maker Movement”, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization,

7(3), pp. 11 - 14. Accessed via: http://0-muse.jhu.edu.wam.city.ac.uk/article/499244/pdf [accessed

04 January 2017]

Dugmore, P., Lindop, H. and Jacob, B. (2014) “Making the makers: an exploration of a makerspace in

a city library”, LIANZA Conference 2014, Auckland, New Zealand. Available from:

http://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/default/files/Dugmore_P_Making_the_makers.pdf [accessed 04

January 2017]

Eastell, C. (2015) “Robotics, Digital Making and 3D Printing: Libraries Offer Limitless Opportunities

for Learning”, CILIP Blog, 16 November 2015. Available from: http://www.cilip.org.uk/blog/robotics-

digital-making-3d-printing-libraries-offer-limitless-opportunities-learning [accessed 04 January 2017]

Fab Foundation (2015) “About”, Fab Foundation. Available from:

http://www.fabfoundation.org/about-us/ [accessed 04 January 2017]

FabLab Devon (n.d.) FabLab Devon [website]. Available at: https://www.fablabdevon.org/ [accessed

04 January 2017]

FabLab Devon (2015) Fab Futures: public libraries in the digital age, 15 May 2015, Exeter Library

FabLabs (n.d.) “Labs – United Kingdom”, FabLabs [website]. Available from:

https://www.fablabs.io/labs?country=gb [accessed 04 January 2017]

Gershenfeld, N. (2012) “How to make almost anything: The digital fabrication revolution”, Foreign

Affairs, 91(6), p. 43 - 57. Available from: http://cba.mit.edu/docs/papers/12.09.FA.pdf [accessed 04

January 2017]

Gierdowski, D. and Reis, D. (2015) "The MobileMaker: an experiment with a Mobile Makerspace",

Library Hi Tech, 33(4), pp. 480 - 496. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2015-0067

[accessed 04 January 2017]

41

Ginsberg, S. (n.d.) Libraries & Maker Culture: A Resource Guide [website]. Available at: http://library-

maker-culture.weebly.com/ [accessed 04 January 2017]

Halverson, E. and Sheridan, K. (2014) “The Maker Movement in Education”, Harvard Educational

Review, 84(4), pp. 495 - 504. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063

[accessed 04 January 2017]

Haug, C. (2014). “Here's how we did it: The story of the EPL makerspace”, Feliciter, 60(1), pp. 21 - 23.

Accessed via: http://0-

search.ebscohost.com.wam.city.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=94710184&site=ehost-

live [accessed 04 January 2017]

Hielscher, S. and Smith, A. (2014) “Community-based digital fabrication workshops: A review of the

research literature”, Working Paper Series: SWPS 2014-08. Available from:

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2014-08-swps-hielscher-

smith.pdf&site=25 [accessed 04 January 2017]

Koh, K. and Abbas, J. (2015) “Competencies for information professionals in learning labs and

makerspaces”, Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 56(2), pp. 114 - 129.

Available via: http://dx.doi.org/10.12783/issn.2328-2967/56/2/3 [accessed 04 January 2017]

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham (2016) Ground Floor BLC. Available from:

http://paplan.lbbd.gov.uk/online-

applications/files/F13DE3A833EE3ECFA80AE58D94ED509E/pdf/16_01368_FUL-

GENERAL_LAYOUT_DRAWING-182888.pdf [accessed 04 January 2017]

Luthy, C. (2015) “Making Makers: Educating librarians about makerspaces”, Computers in Libraries,

35(9), pp. 4 - 8. Accessed via: http://0-

search.proquest.com.wam.city.ac.uk/docview/1755071219/fulltextPDF/6D3B506AE97E4B52PQ/1?a

ccountid=14510 [accessed 04 January 2017]

Makercart and Artefacto (2016) An introduction to Making Library Makers, 16 February 2016,

Makerversity Somerset House, London

Manchester City Council (n.d.) What you can do at Central Library: The Media Lounge, Manchester

City Council [website] Available at:

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/500138/central_library/6316/what_you_can_do_at_central_li

brary [accessed 04 January 2017]

McCue, T. (2011) “First Public Library to Create a Maker Space”, Forbes, 15 November 2011.

Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2011/11/15/first-public-library-to-create-a-

maker-space/#4bb24d3a80da [accessed 04 January 2017]

Moorefield-Lang, H. (2014) "Makers in the library: case studies of 3D printers and maker spaces in

library settings", Library Hi Tech, 32(4), pp. 583 - 593. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-

06-2014-0056 [accessed 04 January 2017]

Moorefield-Lang, H. (2015) “Change in the Making: Makerspaces and the Ever-Changing Landscape

of Libraries”, TechTrends, 59(3), pp. 107 - 112. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-

015-0860-z [accessed 04 January 2017]

42

Naylor, A. (2013) On the Origins of St Botolph's Library-Hack-Maker Space: Envisioning the library of

the future – from the ground up. Available at: http://commonfutures.eu/wp-

content/uploads/2013/11/On-the-Origins-of-St-Botolphs.pdf [accessed 04 January 2017]

Nowlan, G. (2015) "Developing and implementing 3D printing services in an academic library",

Library Hi Tech, 33(4), pp. 472 - 479. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-05-2015-0049

[accessed 04 January 2017]

Oates, B. (2006) Researching information systems and computing. London: SAGE.

Pearson, P. (2014) “TechShop’s Not-So-Secret Ingredient”, Innovation Campus Birmingham, 31 July

2014. Available from: https://www.innovationbham.com/news/techshops-not-so-secret-ingredient/

[accessed 04 January 2017]

Pekacar, K. (2015) “Printing a new kind of library”, Digital Watches are a Pretty Neat Idea, 25 March 2015. Available at: https://katiepekacar.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/printing-a-new-kind-of-library/ [accessed 04 January 2017]

Pickard, A. (2007) Research methods in information. London: Facet.

Pryor, S. (2014) “Implementing a 3D Printing Service in an Academic Library”, Journal of Library

Administration, 54, pp. 1 - 10. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2014.893110

[accessed 04 January 2017]

Ree, R. (2011) 3D Printing: Convergences, Frictions, Fluidity. MSc, University of Toronto. Available

from: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/31404 [accessed 04 January 2017]

Robertson, I. (2016) 3D Printing in Scottish Public Libraries: Final Report. Glasgow: Scottish Library

and Information Council. Available from: http://scottishlibraries.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/10/3D_Printing_Final_Report_2016.pdf [accessed 04 January 2017]

SCL (n.d.) “Code Green: Digital Making Kit”, Society of Chief Librarians. Available at:

http://goscl.com/codegreen/#Introduction [accessed 04 January 2017]

SCL (2016) Code Green Digital Making Learning and Showcase Event, 1 March 2016, Clapham

Library, London

Shales, M. (2016) “New ‘Tech City’ to open in Barking”, Barking and Dagenham Post, 08 January

2016. Available from:

http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/business/new_tech_city_to_open_in_barking_1

_4372825 [accessed 04 January 2017]

Sheridan, K. et al. (2014). “Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces”,

Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), pp. 505 - 531. Accessed via: https://0-

global.factiva.com.wam.city.ac.uk:443/redir/default.aspx?P=sa&an=UGHER00020150108eac100005

&cat=a&ep=ASE [accessed 04 January 2017]

Slatter, D. and Howard, Z. (2013) “A place to make, hack, and learn: makerspaces in Australian public

libraries”, The Australian Library Journal, 62(4), pp. 272 - 284. Available from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2013.853335 [accessed 04 January 2017]

43

Sleigh, A. Stewart, H. and Stokes, K. (2015a) Open dataset of UK makerspaces. London: Nesta.

Available from: http://www.nesta.org.uk/uk-makerspaces-data [accessed 04 January 2017]

Sleigh, A. Stewart, H. and Stokes, K. (2015b) Open dataset of UK makerspaces: a user's guide.

London: Nesta. Available from:

http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/open_dataset_of_uk_makerspaces_users_guide.pdf

[accessed 04 January 2017]

Sleigh, A. Stewart, H. and Stokes, K. (2015c) “Top findings from the open dataset of UK

makerspaces”, NESTA Blogs, 24 April 2015. Available at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/top-findings-

open-dataset-uk-makerspaces [accessed 04 January 2017]

SLIC (2016) “3D Printing”, Scottish Library and Information Council, 19 September 2016. Available

from: http://scottishlibraries.org/3d-printing/ [accessed 04 January 2017]

Suffolk Libraries (n.d.) “Enterprise + Innovation Hub”, Suffolk Libraries [website]. Available from:

https://www.suffolklibraries.co.uk/libraries/hub/ [accessed 04 January 2017]

Stirling Council (n.d.) “Library Groups & Activities”, Stirling Council [website]. Available from:

http://my.stirling.gov.uk/services/libraries-and-archives/libraries-general-information/groups-

_and_-activities [accessed 04 January 2017]

Taylor, N., Hurley, U. and Connolly, P. (2016) “Making community: the wider role of makerspaces in

public life”, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA. Available from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858073 [accessed 04 January 2017]

TechShop (n.d.) “TechShop Global”, TechShop [website]. Available from:

http://www.techshop.ws/ts_global.html [accessed 04 January 2017]

Tyler, A. (2015) “Cardiff Central Library goes digi-tastic!”, Alyson's Welsh libraries blog, 06 August 2015. Available at: https://libalyson.wordpress.com/2015/08/06/cardiff-central-library-goes-digi-tastic/ [accessed 04 January 2017]

UK Hackspace Foundation (2016) “Main Page”, UK Hackspace Foundation. Available from:

http://www.hackspace.org.uk/wiki/Main_Page [accessed 04 January 2017]

Van Holm, E. (2015) “Makerspaces and contributions to entrepreneurship”, Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 195, pp. 24 - 31. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.167

[accessed 04 January 2017]

Waiting Room (n.d.) What is the Waiting Room? Waiting Room [website]. Available at: http://st-

botolphs.org/about/ [accessed 04 January 2017]

Willett, R. (2016) “Making, makers, and makerspaces: A discourse analysis of professional journal

articles and blog posts about makerspaces in public libraries”, The Library Quarterly, 86(3), pp. 313 -

329. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/686676 [accessed 04 January 2017]

Willingham, T. and De Boer, J. (2015). Makerspaces in libraries. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &

Littlefield

44

Woodhouse, J. and Dempsey, N. (2016) Public libraries. (House of Commons Library Briefing Paper,

SN05875, 15 April 2016). Available from:

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05875/SN05875.pdf [accessed 04 January

2017]

45

9. Appendices Appendix 9.1 Dissertation Reflection

The overall focus of the dissertation – the studying the benefits of makerspaces in public libraries –

remained same from the proposal into the final dissertation. The original proposal had been to

perform a comparative case study of two different public libraries with makerspaces, however once I

had started planning the methodology it became clear that a single case study site would be both

more manageable, and provide more detailed insights. Also, given the varied nature of how

makerspaces function, the ability to make generalisations about the whole population were less of a

concern, so a smaller sample size could be justified.

It took longer than I expected for the participants to respond, and to be able to arrange a suitable

date to meet. This delay, along with other time commitments meant that I was only able to make a

single visit to DigiLab, and on the day there were only two interviewees available. They offered two

other interviews via Skype, but we were unable to arrange a mutually suitable time. As such, I fear

that there were some serious shortcomings in the amount of data collected. Had I been able to

interview more participants, with different roles in the space, it would have provided more weight to

the findings. Apart from interviewing, I also analysed some of the projects, which provided some

level of triangulation. Ideally, as well as interviews I would have carried out observations (of

organised classes and freer open-lab times), which would have enabled triangulation of what the

participants say they do, against how they actually work. However, in the case of DigiLab, this would

have been difficult to do without further ethical clearance, as under-18s make up a very large

proportion of the user base.

I felt that the semi-structured interview technique was largely successful – though it was perhaps

closer to an unstructured interview than I had planned. This in large part is due to lack of experience

in conducting research interviews, but would now feel more confident in using this method again.

The conversations were open and free-flowing, with both participants offering extremely interesting

insights, and raising issues which I had not anticipated, so worked well as an exploratory tool.

Overall, though I was disappointed by the amount of data collected, I was pleased to get a much

better insight into what is still an emerging field. I have gained useful practical advice I can use

professionally (particularly in being able to better advocate for the benefits of makerspaces), as well

as greater confidence in interviewing. I feel that the data collected so far would be a good basis for

further, more detailed research.

46

Appendix 9.2 Dissertation Proposal

Working title

Creating a Library Makerspace: Evaluating the Value of Digital Making in Public Libraries

Introduction

Most simply defined as “public workshops where makers can share tools and knowledge” (Taylor,

Hurley and Connolly 2016), makerspaces are currently a hot topic within the library world. An

increasing number of libraries are establishing or planning to establish spaces where their users can

create. Though the concept of makerspaces within libraries may seem unusual, their “values strongly

echo libraries’ core mission of providing equal access to knowledge resources” (Taylor, Hurley and

Connolly 2016).

Public librarians in the UK are becoming increasingly interested in implementing makerspaces within

their libraries. Being that it involves technology and concepts relatively unfamiliar to most library

workers, there has consequently been huge amount interest in the practicalities of implementing

makerspaces. There has also been much interest in defining potential benefits of maker spaces;

however, this is something that can be very difficult to define and measure.

The establishment of makerspaces is still in a relatively early stage in the UK, and the debate is

characterised by equal measures of excitement, trepidation, technical language, speculation,

scepticism and enthusiasm. As such, there is a need for original research into this emergent area,

especially in the context of UK public libraries.

Aims and objectives

No two makerspaces are alike, each being uniquely dependent on the needs of the community and

the level of resources available. The aim of this research is to discern what the potential benefits of

digital making can be for users of maker spaces, and to attempt to discover the extent of these

benefits. It is hope that this research will be useful for both already established makerspaces, and for

libraries planning future maker spaces.

In order to achieve this aim, the following objectives will be sought to be met:

• Determine the different models of maker space currently implemented in UK public libraries

• How public libraries have attempted to find out user needs/expectations

• What the types of users of public library makerspaces

• What are he uses of maker spaces, in terms of physical outcomes and products

• Outline the benefits to users/community/library

• Make an assessment of the longer term sustainability of maker space models

It is hoped that by answering these objectives, a generic framework for evaluating the benefits of

makerspaces will be able to be created, which should be of use to any public library.

47

Scope and definition

This project will concentrate on maker spaces within UK public libraries – both in the form of already

established and operational makerspaces, and the wider interest and debate about them within the

public library sector, which is likely to lead to a much larger uptake. The reason for the focus on

public libraries (as opposed to other types of library) is how public libraries are open and accessible

to everyone, encourage free or low-cost access to knowledge and learning, and act as the focus of

community activities – all characteristics in common with the Maker Movement.

However, as there is only a fairly limited number of currently operational maker spaces within UK

public libraries, examples and literature will be drawn from a wider field – the maker movement

more generally in the UK and internationally, and from countries where maker spaces within public

libraries are already more common.

Though examples and models will be taken from other contexts, the purpose of this research is to

determine their applicability to UK public libraries – as opposed to other types of library (eg school

or academic), or to establishing maker spaces in non-library settings (eg. within community centres,

as artists’ studios or as for-profit businesses).

It is important to define makerspace, and why this particular term has been chosen over alternative

names for the purpose of this dissertation. Makerspaces refer to open workshops, accessible to any

member of the public (either for free or paid for). Though they often feature high-tech digital

fabrication equipment such as 3D printers and laser cutters, they can give access to low- and high-

tech equipment. It is too simplistic to define makerspaces simply as a collection of tools; as John

Burke argues, makerspaces are “combinations of a community of users, a collection of tools and a

desire to create, exchange knowledge, and share what is created. The defining character of a

makerspace is that it enables making.” (Burke 2014, p.xv).

There are many alternative names for these types of space – makerspaces, Fab Lab, hackerspace and

TechShop being amongst the most commonly used. Each of these terms reflects a particular

technical emphasis, community ethos or organisational structure. FabLabs originated in 2005 from

the MIT Centre for Bits and Atoms – and now form part of a global network of over 1000 workshops,

all sharing a common charter, a minimum inventory of equipment (Fab Foundation 2015). TechShop

is the brand name of a for-profit chain of workshops throughout the USA founded in 2006, which

offer “public access to high-end manufacturing equipment in exchange for membership fees”

(Cavalcanti 2013). As FabLab and Techshop are both brand names, it will not be appropriate to use

them to describe these types of space generically. The term hackerspace originated in Europe in the

mid-1990s, and describes a much very loosely-organised informal network of community run spaces,

sharing a counter-cultural “hacker ethic”. Hackerspaces encompass many types of making activities,

but generally have an emphasis on programming and electronics. Cavalcanti argues that the

negative connotations of the term hacking makes the term “fundamentally exclusionary” (Cavalcanti

2013), which to some extent works against their principle of openness.

I have chosen to use the term makerspace (Makerspace or maker space also very commonly used) as

the most generic description, encompassing all of these types of space which share the common

ethos of the Maker Movement (which will be further explored in the literature review). I agree with

Cavalcanti (2013) that the term makerspace is more inclusive, representing “a far more mainstream

vision of a publicly-accessible creative space”, which aligns well with the purpose of a public library.

48

Additionally, makerspace is probably the most commonly used within a LIS context, as roughly

demonstrated by searching in the two biggest LIS bibliographic databases LISA and LISTA: the search

makerspace* OR "maker space*" generates the significantly more results (81 in LISA, 192 in LISTA)

than hackerspace*" OR "hacker space*" (6 in LISA, 11 in LISTA) or fablab* OR "fab lab*" (9 in LISA, 24

in LISTA).

Research Context

The primary context for this research is the upsurge in interest about maker spaces from public

libraries in the UK. The first library maker space in the USA was Fayetteville Free Library in 2011

(McCue 2011), with dozens more established across the country since then – at least 98 established

or soon to be established as of November 2013 (Burke 2014, pp.165-166). In the UK, though there

are numerous open workshops which would fall under the maker space category, only a handful

have so far been established in public libraries – according to Public Libraries News, there are 9

currently operational permanent public library maker spaces, with Dundee and Exeter libraries being

the first launched in May 2014 (Public Libraries News n.d.). Despite the relatively low uptake

currently, the huge interest in the subject is evident from a number of recent conferences,

workshops, resource guides and initiatives aimed at public librarians. For example, in 2015 the

Society of Chief Librarians (SCL) launched Code Green, a toolkit of resources to help public libraries

roll out digital making opportunities, created in response to the huge demand of libraries across the

country for guidance and advice on this subject (Eastell 2015). The Code Green website provides

practical advice on different types of digital making activities, case studies, and advice on volunteers,

marketing and community involvement. In the past year there have been numerous very well

attended conferences and events aimed at helping UK public libraries launched makerspaces (SCL

2016 ; Makercart and Artefacto 2016 ; FabLab Devon 2015).

Literature Review

For the literature review I shall focus on two main areas of research, which will help give a

theoretical and methodological background to my project. These are: literature relating to the

Maker Movement and current research into existing makerspaces (both within libraries and more

generally).

The Maker Movement

It would be impossible to consider makerspaces without considering the wider cultural drive behind

their growth, known as the “maker movement” or “maker culture”. Though the name sounds

unremarkable, as people have been making things throughout all of history, the emergence of the

internet and the cheap availability of digital fabrication technology has come together to form a

huge surge in interest from ordinary people making physical objects. The lowering cost of

technology such as 3D printing enables people to manufacture complex objects previously only

achievable by industrial methods, whilst the internet has allowed people to learn how to make use

of these technologies: seek advice, share ideas and collaborate online (Burke 2014, pp.10-11).

Makerspaces are the “epicentre” maker movement, as physical spaces where people can come

together to share tools and knowledge (Dellot 2015, p.13).

Some of the key elements of the maker movement ethos are: the importance of informal hands-on

learning, of play, tinkering (Dougherty 2012, pp.11-12); collaborative work practices, knowledge

49

sharing and open source/open access (Dellot 2015, p.17); the impact of new technologies on

manufacturing and culture, as a “new industrial revolution” (Anderson 2012; Gershenfeld 2012;

Hatch 2013).

Interest in the maker movement comes from several different, but overlapping, contexts: education

and schools; hobbyists and DIY enthusiast; entrepreneurs, designers and inventors; social

enterprises; as well as libraries. The value of looking at the maker movement in the context of this

dissertation is that much of the ethos, and success stories from it can be used as inspiration for

innovative library services.

Research into current makerspaces

Looking at current research into makerspaces (both within libraries and more generally) will give an

overview current organisational models of makerspace, the types of users, and the benefits they

draw. It will also provide an overview of the methods used by researchers, and help in designing the

methodology for this dissertation.

According to Hielscher and Smith (2014, p.20) academic literature looking at “community-based

digital fabrication workshops” (analogous to makerspaces) is rare in comparison to media reports

and activist writing. Most existing social science research has focussed on business, technical and

industry aspects, rather than on social, cultural and political implications (Hielscher and Smith 2014,

p.20). The same pattern seems to apply to literature specifically dealing with makerspaces in

libraries, with most of the literature being media reports or advocacy and practical advice, with little

research into social impact.

Several recent projects have assessed the current state of makerspaces within the UK.

Nesta’s open dataset of UK makerspaces (Sleigh, Stewart and Stokes 2015a) aggregates extremely

detailed information about makerspaces of all varieties around the UK – including locations,

equipment, facilities, policies and programmes. The report found 97 makerspaces in the UK, with

socialising, learning and making stated as the top reasons for people using the spaces (Sleigh,

Stewart and Stokes 2015b p.4;p.6). The research method used were desk research to identify sites

and a survey distributed online (Sleigh, Stewart and Stokes 2015b, p.2). This open dataset builds

upon a previous report by Nesta investigating the Making Sense of the UK Collaborative Economy

(Stokes et al 2014) and Young Digital Makers: Surveying attitudes and opportunities for digital

creativity across the UK (Quinlan 2015).

The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce’s (RSA) Ours to

Master project (Dellot 2015) seeks to answer these questions: “Why are makerspaces emerging, and

why now? What impact are they having on their users and the communities in which they are

based? And is this an enduring trend or a passing fad?” (Dellot 2015, p.5). This project uses mixed

methods: desk research, data mining of government datasets, an expert roundtable, semi-structured

interviews with stakeholders, visits to 12 makerspaces across the UK and a YouGov survey of

“people’s attitudes towards making, makerspaces and the wider economy” (Dellot 2015, p.12).

The Open Workshop Network (Corbin 2016) is a project to map the makerspace community in

London. The methodology seeks to work collaboratively with the participants, encouraging them to

“steer the direction of the project and hold co-ownership over the data that is produced” (Corbin

2016).

The Grassroots Digital Fabrication project develops a framework for looking at themes of “inclusion,

creativity and sustainability in grassroots digital fabrication” and makerspaces (Smith 2014). The

50

Making Community: The Wider Role of Makerspaces in Public Life project used site visits to 15

makerspaces across the UK, and conducted semi-structured interviews with makerspace organisers,

asking about “the history, motivations and ambitions of the facility, its user base, typical activities,

promotion and outreach, and specific examples relating to excluded communities” (Taylor, Hurley

and Connolly 2016).

Literature relating to makerspaces in libraries tends to focus on practical advice about implementing

makerspaces (Burke 2014; Fontichiaro 2015; SCL 2016) or case studies, often focussing on how the

spaces were created (Britton 2012; de Boer 2015; Craddock 2015; Nowlan 2015). As such, there

seems to be room for more research focusing on the impact of makerspaces on their users.

Hielsher and Smith present a very useful summary of methodological lessons to be drawn from past

research into makerspaces:

• Researchers need to consider the format and distribution channels when conducting

surveys.

• Researchers need to be sensitive to the diversity of workshops when considering sampling

issues and consider that some workshops prefer not to limit and specify what they do.

• A lot of discussions and debates within networks can be followed on the internet (within

forums and discussion groups), providing a wealth of information that requires an informed

strategy of data gathering and analysis to make sense of the information.

• Activities of members occur simultaneously in different spaces and through several

technological pathways, thus challenging the employment of some single site and/or single

unit of analysis social science methods.

• A lot of researchers use ethnographic methods within their research, and usually are

members of workshops themselves.

(Hielscher and Smith 2014, p.25)

Methodology

The research for this project will take the form of comparative case studies of two public library

makerspaces. The initial stage will be desk research into the current level of provision of

makerspaces in UK public libraries, with the nine public library makerspaces listed by Public Libraries

News (n.d.) as a starting point. Content analysis of websites and social media postings will be used to

determine: what facilities the makerspaces provide, whether they are aimed at particular audiences

(children, artists, businesses etc), gauge the level of community involvement.

This desk research will then be the basis for selecting two makerspaces as case study sites. The

selection will partly have to be based on a convenience sample of locations within easy reach of

London, in order to keep travel expenses down. The main criteria will be to choose two makerspaces

operating under different models, eg. one FabLab within an enclosed area and well equipped, and

one mobile makerspace.

After making contact with the spaces, and if they agree to participate in the research, semi-

structured interviews would be undertaken with a sample of organisers and users of the space.

Heeding Hielsher and Smith’s advice, semi-structured interviews are likely to be an appropriate

method for makerspaces, given the diversity of workshops. The semi-structured interviews would be

based on the approach taken by Taylor, Hurley and Connolly, asking about “the history, motivations

and ambitions of the facility, its user base, typical activities, promotion and outreach”.

51

From this data collected, a framework for evaluating the benefits of makerspaces will be developed,

which it is hoped will be more widely applicable to other public library makerspaces and digital

manufacturing activities.

Work plan

Task May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Literature Review

Literature Review write up

Research and selection of case study sites

Make contact with case study sites

Develop semi-structured interview questions

Carry out interviews

Methodology write up

Data analysis

Write up

Proof reading

Submission deadline (6 January 2017)

Resources

The resources needed to carry out this research are anticipated to be travel expenses, recording

device and printing costs. Unless external funding can be found, the number and distance of case

study sites will necessarily have to be kept low – I anticipate that this will limit me to a maximum of

two sites, within London or the South East of England.

Ethics

Please see completed ethics checklist, Appendix 1.

Though one of the key audiences of makerspaces are children and teenagers, I will only include

participants over the age of 18 in my research. Information about how under 18s use makerspaces

would be sought indirectly from interviews/questionnaires with librarians, organisers or volunteers

responsible for running the space.

Confidentiality

I do not anticipate that any significant confidentiality issues will arise from this project. Contact

details of groups or individuals for the case study may be collected if participants consent to further

interviews. These will be securely stored in password protected documents, kept separately from

any research data collected. Interview subjects will be given the choice whether they wish to be

identified by name, or simply by role. No personal or contact details will be requested in

questionnaires, and any responses will be anonymised when included in the dissertation and

appendices.

52

References

Anderson, C. (2012) Makers: the new industrial revolution. London: Random House Business.

de Boer, J. (2015) “The business case of FryskLab, Europe’s first mobile library FabLab”, Library Hi

Tech, 33(4), pp.505-518. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2015-0059 [accessed 12

May 2016]

Britton, L. and Considine, S. (2012) “The Makings of Maker Spaces”, Library Journal, 137(16), pp.27.

Accessed via: http://0-search.proquest.com.wam.city.ac.uk/docview/1142277530 [accessed 12 May

2016]

Burke, J. (2014) Makerspaces: a practical guide for librarians. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Cavalcanti, G. (2013) “Is it a Hackerspace, Makerspace, TechShop, or FabLab?”, Make:, 22 May 2013.

Available from: http://makezine.com/2013/05/22/the-difference-between-hackerspaces-

makerspaces-techshops-and-fablabs/ [accessed 12 May 2016]

Corbin, L. (2016) “The Open Workshop Network”, Institute of Making. Available from:

http://www.instituteofmaking.org.uk/research/the-open-workshop-network [accessed 12 May

2016]

Craddock, I. L. (2015) “Makers on the move: a mobile makerspace at a comprehensive public high

school”, Library Hi Tech, 33(4), pp.497-504. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-05-2015-

0056 [accessed 12 May 2016]

Dellot, B. (2015) Ours to Master: How makerspaces can help us master technology for a more human

end. London: RSA. Available from: https://www.thersa.org/discover/publications-and-

articles/reports/ours-to-master/Download [accessed 12 May 2016]

Dougherty, D. (2012) “The Maker Movement”, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization,

7(3), pp.11-14. Accessed via: http://0-muse.jhu.edu.wam.city.ac.uk/article/499244/pdf [accessed 12

May 2016]

Eastell, C. (2015) “Robotics, Digital Making and 3D Printing: Libraries Offer Limitless Opportunities

for Learning”, CILIP Blog, 16 November 2015. Available from: http://www.cilip.org.uk/blog/robotics-

digital-making-3d-printing-libraries-offer-limitless-opportunities-learning [accessed 12 May 2016]

Fab Foundation (2015) “About”, Fab Foundation. Available from:

http://www.fabfoundation.org/about-us/ [accessed 12 May 2016]

FabLab Devon (2015) Fab Futures: public libraries in the digital age, 15 May 2015, Exeter Library.

Fontichiaro, K. (2015) “Creation Culture and Makerspaces” in Hirsh, S. (ed.) (2015) Information

services today: an introduction. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gershenfeld, N. (2012) “How to make almost anything: The digital fabrication revolution”, Foreign

Affairs, 91(6), p.43-57. Available from: http://cba.mit.edu/docs/papers/12.09.FA.pdf [accessed 12

May 2016]

Hatch, M. (2013) The maker movement manifesto: rules for innovation in the new world of crafters,

hackers, and tinkerers. New York: McGraw Hill Professional

53

Hielscher, S. and Smith, A. (2014) “Community-based digital fabrica5on workshops: A review of the

research literature”, Working Paper Series: SWPS 2014-08. Available from:

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2014-08-swps-hielscher-

smith.pdf&site=25 [accessed 12 May 2016]

Makercart and Artefacto (2016) An introduction to Making Library Makers, 16 February 2016,

Makerversity Somerset House, London

McCue, T. (2011) “First Public Library to Create a Maker Space”, Forbes, 15 November 2011.

Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2011/11/15/first-public-library-to-create-a-

maker-space/#4bb24d3a80da [accessed 12 May 2016]

Nowlan, G. (2015) "Developing and implementing 3D printing services in an academic library",

Library Hi Tech, 33(4), pp.472-479. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-05-2015-0049

[accessed 12 May 2016]

Public Libraries News (n.d.) “3D Printers and Maker Spaces in Libraries”, Public Libraries News.

Available from: http://www.publiclibrariesnews.com/practitioners/3d-printers-and-maker-spaces-

in-libraries [accessed 12 May 2016]

SCL (2016) Code Green Digital Making Learning and Showcase Event, 1 March 2016, Clapham

Library, London

Sleigh, A. Stewart, H. and Stokes, K. (2015a) Open dataset of UK makerspaces. London: Nesta.

Available from: http://www.nesta.org.uk/uk-makerspaces-data [accessed 12 May 2016]

Sleigh, A. Stewart, H. and Stokes, K. (2015b) Open dataset of UK makerspaces: a user's guide.

London: Nesta. Available from:

http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/open_dataset_of_uk_makerspaces_users_guide.pdf

[accessed 12 May 2016]

Smith, A. (2014) “Grassroots Digital Fabrication”, Grassroots Innovations, 15 January 2014. Available

from: https://grassrootsinnovations.org/2014/01/15/grassroots-digital-fabrication/ [accessed 12

May 2016]

Stokes, K. et al (2014) Making Sense of the UK Collaborative Economy. London: Nesta. Available

from:

http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/making_sense_of_the_uk_collaborative_economy_14.p

df [accessed 12 May 2016]

Taylor, N., Hurley, U.K. and Connolly, P. (2016) “Making community: the wider role of makerspaces

in public life”, CHI 2016, San Jose, CA, USA. Available from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858073 [accessed 12 May 2016]

Quinlan, O. (2015) Young Digital Makers: Surveying attitudes and opportunities for digital creativity

across the UK. London: Nesta. Available from:

http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/youngdigmakers.pdf [accessed 12 May 2016]

54

Appendix 9.3 Email sent to potential participants

Subject: Dissertation research project on makerspaces in libraries

Hello DigiLab team,

My name is Pablo Calvo and I am Masters student in Library Science at City, University of London.

I am currently doing a dissertation looking at makerspaces and digital making in public libraries, and what impact they have on their users and the local community. I saw Seun’s presentation about DigiLab earlier this year at the Code Green event in Clapham, and I think DigiLab is a fantastic example of a makerspace and library working together.

Would you be willing to let me use DigiLab as a case study for my research? This would involve me visiting the DigiLab to have a look at your projects and facilities, and carrying out some interviews with people involved in running the space - for example organisers, volunteers or library staff aged over 18.

If you are willing to participate, the visit and interviews would take place at a time of your convenience in November.

If you’ve got any questions about my project, please get in touch with me at pablo.calvo@city.ac.uk

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks

Pablo Calvo

55

Appendix 9.4 Interview Transcripts

Interview 1

Interviewee: Ayo Arigbabu, DigiLab member and volunteer

Pablo:

I just wanted to start off with asking you what you do in the DigiLab, what your role is?

Ayo:

Ok, I’ve been given a role – Architect in Residence.

Pablo:

Architect in Residence?

Ayo:

So, I think, that’s … that I like to think of what I’m doing more in the line of innovation architecture.

Meaning trying to build a structure around, trying to build some kind of opportunities for innovation

within the space. Looking at what’s been done already and seeing in what ways we can extend it and

push it in new directions. For example, the 3D printer is there, but we need people to use it. So, how

do we do that? Beyond just showing off things that we can do with it. How do we get new people to

start using it? So, we came up with the idea of 3D modelling training. Because you need to, it gets

more interesting if you are able to model what you need yourself and design it yourself.

Pablo:

Instead of just downloading from the internet?

Ayo:

Yeah. We’ve got a bunch of kids. It was interesting for them to do something in a piece of software,

and see it being printed, and that just imprints in their mind that I can make things myself.

So, another area where I’ve tried to intervene is game design. There are lots of tools here – we’ve

got Oculus Rift, we’ve got all sorts of VR [Virtual Reality] headgear, and, all sorts of I mean… PS4 is

there. It’s like, it’s like a candy shop for a game developer. We, before we didn’t have so many

people doing that. We had designers and people working with hardware, but not a lot of people

doing game development, so I tried to build some, some opportunities around that.

So, one key thing that we’ve tried to do is have a game jam, and we’re aiming at having that every

month. And already, the first one was scheduled for the 3rd of December, but we’re going to move

that forward, because we didn’t have enough sign ups. Well partly because we have a sponsor who

expects a certain type of turn out. But for us we have like 15-20 people who’ve signed up. That’s fine

for us to do an event. Just to satisfy the sponsor we will shift till January to try to get more people on

board.

But the impact of that already is that lots of people in-house are already picking up game

development skills. There’s a bunch of teenagers there, if you’re here in the evening, you just hear

them talking game development, talking Unity [game development software], you know using all the

terms and stuff. And I just smile because, just a few weeks ago they had no clue about this. But now

they are actually talking as if they are a games studio about to make the next big thing. And, you

know, charting their progress is quite impressive. In a very short time they’re, they know it. They

understand it, they get what is going on, and they are able to make something. And…

56

Pablo:

And how, how do they pick that up? Is it from…?

Ayo:

They just, they just jump on the PC, go on the internet, and then I look over their shoulders once in a

while, and just give them tips: “No, don’t do that. If you do that you’ll spend longer doing it. Why

don’t you try that? Why don’t you Google this? If you run into trouble with this sort of thing, Google

these sort of key words, and you’ll get the kind of help you’ll need.”

Because all the information is really out there. What I’ve found is that, self-learning is actually the

only type of learning that exists. Doing my own Masters programme, that was very plain, you know.

Even when you’re having classes, what they’re really doing is to ty to help you structure your own

self-learning. So you go off to do the actual learning on your own.

And, these kids are bright. So, some things that even took me a bit more time to, to learn, you know,

they are just snapping it up very quickly. They even get impatient with me at times when I’m trying

to help them de-bug their code, because they’re like maybe thinking three steps ahead of me, and

I’m still, you know, trying to catch up like an old man.

So, that’s the motivation actually to, have these bright minds, and have them exceed themselves in

every way.

So apart from the game jam, what else have I been doing? I’ve also tried to get us into competitions.

We had a successful run with our first one. The second one, was a total failure. But the first one was

very good, it makes up for any other failure that might come up afterwards.

Because we, with, with two of the teenagers we, we went for this hack-a-thon sponsored by

WorldPay [multinational payment processing company]. And, we, they … we didn’t win, but they

created a third prize, just to, you know, award something to us – which was really cool -and

subsequently they invited us again to come with the kids to, to their office. And we actually thought

it was like a party or something, that they were doing, and that they were just going to, you know,

show us: “See these young lads that we…”. But actually it was about us, kind of, and that was like

really, encouraging that, OK, if you’re doing good stuff you get recognised. And, for the kids, it’s

giving them rockstar status. It’s, I’m sure, it’s a major boost to their confidence, and it’s, further

down the line they’re going to come back to that kind of experience, that what, what made them

have that determination to succeed in tech.

Pablo:

Do you think, they, well in the local area, would they have access to this kind of stuff anywhere else?

Ayo:

Um...

Pablo:

Or would they would they have…?

Ayo:

Well from my experience in other spaces, there are lots of spaces like this. Maybe not necessarily

really in Barking, because there is more activity close to central London – Hackney area, Shoreditch

area, that’s where most of this sort of stuff goes on. Otherwise you would have spaces like this in

schools and universities, but they are kind of corralled off, and they’re like for when you are having

classes, or somebody’s doing a training, you know, it’s not open access, I can just. Because what

57

goes on here is there’s no curriculum, there is no, nobody looking over your shoulder saying “you

must do this, you must do that”. The success you make out of it is up to you.

So those guys doing the, the game programming stuff now, before they started, after we told them

about it, they were spending a lot more time playing on the PS4, you know. But that in itself is also

part of the experience, because playing a game and understanding the game mechanics, and... What

is now going to be happening to them is that as they’re playing, they’re trying to decipher “How did

they programme that?” “How did they code that?” “How can I do that in my own game?”

You know, so, it’s open access here, so you can just pop in, and just hang out. If there’s nothing that

you’re doing, or nothing, no project that you’re involved in, or you don’t know anybody, you can play

the PS4, and that’s the process through which you start to know people, you know. Somebody

comes to play with you, and then you engage with the person, and you’re like “That guy is cool, that

dude is cool. I want to check in there tomorrow and see if he’s there.” And then you ask him “So,

what are you working on?” That’s one common thing that happens a lot you know.

I usually see that. And every now and then, even the little kids will come and say, “so what are you

doing?” And then, I have to like, format my brain and remember what exactly it was I was doing, and

try to find the words to explain it to them, you know. And so, by asking “What are you working on?”

“What are you doing?”, you know you get to see what other people are doing, and you get to see

what the possibilities are, and you start to see connections between what you’re doing and how, you

know, maybe you could collaborate in the future, or you could ask for advice.

Like, there’s somebody that comes here often as well, S, he’s, a more experienced programmer than

I am, and he’s also a lot more experienced in hardware. You know, so every now and then he comes

to ask me what am I doing. You know, and I tell him, and then he, you know, gives me tips, and that

kind of stuff. And when I feel I’m stuck with something too, if he comes in, I could be asking him

“What do you think, how do you think I should do that?” Then he gives me advice. And then,

because of the game jam, he’s also started taking an interest in Unity. You know, so, then the

reverse happens, and I’m giving him tips on how to use Unity.

So, what happens is that we are all skilling up informally, by rubbing off each other. And, yeah.

And, what, what also makes DigiLab unique is the partnership with the library, and by extension the

partnership with, with the borough. Because, it creates opportunities for projects to go live, because

the library and the borough, they’ll typically have, things that they want to do. Simple things,

nothing complicated, that because of the way that they are structured as organisations, to get those

things done commercially might take time or cost so much, and all that. But because they know

there’ll be somebody in that DigiLab space who understands that kind of thing, and can solve it for

us, so they come. And typically they’ll ask Seun. And he just thinks, “OK, who do I know in the team

who’s doing something interesting that we can apply to this?”, and then he calls somebody over

“Can you do this?” And, bam, that thing that was a pet project, or that skill that was just something

that you’d learnt just while playing, becomes something real, that you can do as a live project.

You know, and S has done, you know, different things here. J, who’s the 15-year-old who’s a Python

[programming language] guru and Raspberry Pi [credit card sized programmable computer] guru,

he’s done, you know, stuff that was paid for. You know, likewise, I’ve had a major project I started

off with here being commissioned by the library to be hosted, an interactive story telling installation,

to be hosted in December.

And, I cannot overemphasise how useful that is for a creative person, the fact that, not just because

you’re earning income, which goes a long way, you know, because you have to like, fund, oil the

wheels, you know. But not just that, just the idea that finally, you know, my work is going to get out

there, because that is what every creative person wants. You want your work to be out there, you

want people to engage with it, you want to be able to get feedback. So that’s something that’s very

useful.

58

Because, if DigiLab was just in some building, somewhere, that kind of connection wouldn’t be, it

wouldn’t happen so quickly, you know, you have to come and have a meeting. Here you don’t have

to have a formal meeting per se - somebody from the library is going to stroll in, while you’re, you

know, joining some wires and then they’re going to ask you “What are doing?” and then by the time

you’ve explained, they’re thinking “But we can use this for...” And then a conversation starts, and,

you know, something interesting happens. So, yeah.

Pablo:

Yeah, I think that’s why libraries are so interested in it, because we’ve got, we are open to anyone,

people can do anything, and we’ve got real life situations.

Ayo:

And it’s also 100% educational. You know, yeah it’s serious learning, even though it might not be

done formally. It’s life skills, and yeah…

Pablo:

So, in terms of, like when people talk about makerspaces, the kind of benefits they often talk about

first are supporting creativity, learning, enterprise and entrepreneurs, encouraging people who

wouldn’t know about tech into tech. Is there anything else you’d add, any other benefits?

Ayo:

Solving problems for people.

Pablo:

So real life?

Ayo:

Yes. So with DigiLab here, most likely, especially as we get the word out, lots of people in the

community will tend to remember that “Oh, there’s that place in the library where I can, you know,

get something solved for me.” Maybe some problem with their computer, or, something that a little

programming can solve, you know, which they won’t have access to developers out there, who have

some corporate structure shielding them from, you know. They can just come in and ask, you know,

and get a 12-year-old to do it for them, and give them £10 an hour or something. So, yeah. So,

problem solving I think is useful. Which is something interesting that Seun might talk a bit more

about.

We had a meeting with the council recently, and that came up prominently. The fact that they spend

quite a bit on certain things, and they might not be getting exactly the sort of results they want. And

you know, just by maybe putting some funds, not even paying for those services directly, even just

doing some funding to DigiLab that “OK, train your people some more, get more equipment” that

kind of stuff, you know, automatically make DigiLab, you know like, like an extension of their IT

department – or a cooler extension, you know, more fun and hip.

Pablo:

Because it is always really hard get things done, IT have always got their rules “you can do this, you

can’t do that, you need to go to tender for this”

Ayo:

59

Exactly. So in terms of problem solving, that’s real tangible scenario happening that we’re actually

getting the council to consider using some of the funds they use to pay for certain services, through

into DigiLabs, so DigiLabs can naturally just solve those problems for them. That makes a lot of

sense.

Pablo:

And do you think you can, do you think you’d be able to cope with the scale of a big council project?

Ayo:

Yeah, so that’s the thing. A big council project really – lines of code are lines of code – so it doesn’t

really matter if the code was written in some expensive office in New York, or in some kid’s dorm

room – Facebook. You know, lines of code are lines of code. If its intelligently done, if it solves a

problem, then it works.

For example, J, the 15-year-old that I mentioned, got to build something for a client – a licence plate

reader. So, using cameras and blah blah blah, as your car is driving in it can read your licence plate

number and store that to a database. That’s the kind of technology that Lidl use for their parking

system and stuff. And he’s done it, he’s done the prototype, it works. All he has to do now is, you

know, send the PCB [Printed Circuit Board] drawings to China and they can, you know, manufacture

loads of it and send back here. We can print 3D casings for it, pay Amazon for web hosting, for cloud

hosting, and boom, we have a service ready that can be deployed across the borough, you know,

wherever it is that the council wants to monitor parking, or anything like that, we can deploy it, or

manufacture it to whatever order. You get what I’m saying? It’s the same thing that could be

charged loads more money for, you know. But because we’re trying to find our feet, and even if J

gets just £50 for doing it, you know, the fact that his work is what’s being used around the county, is

really good for his CV. So, yeah.

So, in terms of scaling up, that’s why we also have workshops and things like that. Like the game dev

thing that we’re doing now. What that will mean, is that we can, once we do that for a couple of

more months, and the guys who have been skilling up have improved their skills to a certain level,

what it means is we can take on more ambitious versions of the kind of installation that I’m going to

put up in the library in December, for example. We can do more impressive things, because now

there’ll be a team, so what one man can do is different from what a team of 5 or 6 can do. Yeah, so

it’s the same thing that we’re doing with 3D printing, the same thing that we are going to do with

the Raspberry Pi, we had a Raspberry Pi Jam recently. And J is being primed to start running some

classes targeting, really, young girls. So by the time we run that kind of cycle a few times, means

we’ll have more J’s in a few years, and in a few months. Yeah, so that means we can do more hack-a-

thons like the WorldPay, and get more exposure. Even if they don’t win, it means that we’re

replicating the experience for more kids.

Yeah, so it can scale, and evidence that it can scale is the fact that we were in the smaller room over

there for six months. I was there for maybe like a month and a half or so before the move to this

space, which is bigger and is doing more things, and I reckon that in less than six months we will.

Because one of the directors of DigiLab came in after the launch, and he was like “Guys, you guys are

talking about having a bigger space. I don’t understand how this space is bigger, the place is already

looking cluttered and people are already sitting elbow to elbow.” So clearly in six months’ time the

space will feel choked, because that place now that is empty is going to be a shop. Yeah, and I’ve

already been talking to Seun that we need to up the whole making thing, with more 3D printers, and

CNC [Computer Numerical Control] cutters, and laser printers. You can see there is no space to put

such equipment, because you need to put them in a protected area, so that people don’t just bump

into things and cover up the CNC machine area, so that dust doesn’t go everywhere. So, this space

60

can easily fit into a floor or two, you know in a building, easily, with activities and all. So, yeah it can

scale rapidly.

Pablo:

Yeah, Seun was telling me about the plans to build up.

Ayo:

Yeah, building up in that direction [void space above YouTube and VR rooms], so that’s expansion

space. But even that, I think, in less than a year there’ll be a need to get a floor somewhere.

Especially if we’re accessing funding, you know, decent funding to get proper equipment, and stuff.

Pablo:

Do you think you’d still be based in the library, or would you move on somewhere else?

Ayo:

If there’s space in the library, that would make a lot of sense, you know, if there’s space in the

library. But if there’s no space in the library, what I suppose will happen is that this presence in the

library will remain, but there’ll be like an extension to DigiLab, but within walking distance. Yeah, so

the focus here might be for the kids, you know, that creates activities for kids, and let that be going

on, while the more hectic kind of stuff can be moved. So, someone like J can graduate into that

other space. You know, the teenagers and the adults can graduate into the other space. That’s kind

of what I foresee.

Pablo:

I get that you’ve got a focus on young people and teenagers, but do you see it expanding into, for

anyone to come in?

Ayo:

Yeah, yeah, it’s actually anyone. Like, I came in – to tell the truth I’ve not told Seun this before –

when I, I just came into the library, and I walked down and I saw DigiLab, and I was like “What’s

DigiLab?” This is the kind of stuff I’m interested in, and I go to lots of spaces, makerspaces and all

that. So, I was like “I never knew something like this existed. What do they do?” it wasn’t very clear,

so I walked in. But when I walked I saw some, you know, young kids, you know, lounging on bean

bags and stuff. I was like, OK, let me just be part of this space, because I want to be part of this

space, but this looks more like teaching kids how to code and that kind of stuff, but it doesn’t

matter, let me just have fun, you know.

But it turned out that I, it wasn’t just about having fun because the first conversation I had with him

[Seun], he was asking me what it was that I did. And then he saw some of my work, and the

conversation moved immediately to “what are you working on right now?”, and then the

conversation moved immediately to “Ok, if we’re going to support what you’re doing, are you going

to be interested in using this space to do that, you’re project?” you know, and it moved to a serious

phase of, you know, of discussion very quickly, very rapidly, and that I think is the experience for

most other people too.

For example, one of my course mates, we finished a course together. I invited her over, on Seun’s

insistence, because once I mentioned what she was working on he was interested. And the next

thing they had a conversation, and boom, they had agreed on how she could make a copy of her

installation here, and, you know, that conversation is still open today.

61

So it’s not, it’s not just kids, it’s a mix, you know. The kids are prominent because whenever they are

in the space they make noise, and, you know they run around, and they corral, and we have to set

up the corrals and stuff like that.

But, you know, there is serious stuff going on as well. Like a team went to Brussels for Code Week, at

the EU Parliament, and they went to present a project built here, for locating books on shelves using

LED lights. A string of LED lights that would, you know, trace a path to the location of the book. And

there were no kids on that team, you know, it was purely adult stuff, and it was all done here. So.

But the mix is good. For example, what we did at WorldPay was much more enriching for me, that

the kids came and participated, and they were super tripped. I mean, even if I won I would still be

jaded, and be looking for the next mountain to conquer and all that, but for them it was something

major, it was you know, really exciting.

And besides that, it’s quite fun working with kids, you know, their excitement rubs off on you, and

then the fact that you find out that there’s some things that they don’t know, and then you’re telling

them, and you see their eyes light up when you pass on that information.

And also, when you also get stuck with some things and you, you call them, you know, and they’re

like “Oh, that’s easy” and they tell you. You know it’s just kind of fun, it’s different experience from

working with other adults. Yeah, so.

Pablo:

So, you said something about, you were talking about creativity – that’s really interesting how

technology and science and creativity. How do you see them working together in a space like this?

Ayo:

My Masters was…

Pablo:

Yeah, can I just ask – what’s your background? Because I haven’t asked you.

Ayo:

Yeah, my Masters was in a programme called Creative Technology.

Pablo:

OK.

Ayo:

So, I don’t see any, I don’t see any dichotomy between creativity and technology. One of the things I

studied was something called a multiplane camera – I did a small paper on that – which was

developed by, well not really by Disney, but they made it popular. Walt Disney Studios way back in

nineteen, late twenties or early thirties. Yeah, and what it was a technological device, you know, for

creating different planes on which you have your images, and then when you shoot it gives a

parallax effect, like a sense of depth, perspective, but it’s still 2D images, so, yeah, lining up. And,

that was a piece of technology, that it was so advanced then that it would be comparable to what VR

is to us now. You know, but they didn’t, that wasn’t “tech”, like we call tech now, but really it’s still

tech, it’s still the same thing, you know, but it was for creative use. It wasn’t something that they

brought from somewhere and applied to the art of animation. No, it was made for animation. And,

so likewise VR and everything. So, creativity, technology is, even the process of problem solving, you

need some creative capacity to iterate through possible solutions and arrive at the one you use, and

all that.

62

So, yeah, well my background, I studied Architecture in Lagos, worked professionally for a few years,

and then ditched everything to jump on the tech bandwagon. And at some point, I’ll find a way to

fuse all that, because there is exciting stuff happening in that direction as well. Especially with 3D

printing and digital fabrication and stuff. So, the way architecture is being delivered in physical terms

is really evolving very fast, as well. So again, I don’t really find any conflicts in you know, those

different directions. I think it’s just different, different manifestations of the same thing.

Pablo:

And do you think that there’s, that that could help people who don’t realise that they’re creative, or

creative people who don’t realise they can do tech?

Ayo:

Yes, definitely. So, like the course, this Creative Technology course I just finished now, you can come

in either as a creative person who wants to learn about tech, or you can come in as somebody who

is a core programmer, who wants to learn about creativity and how to add that creativity to that.

And we had different people like that. I clearly came from the creative industries, and so I had to

learn programming, and that was pretty new to me. I’d already started trying, but I now had to really

go into it, and it was like being dropped in at the deep end, and struggling to stay afloat. I survived it.

And most of my classmates were like that too. I think the class, there were 4 of us, and all 4 of us

were new to programming, but there were 2 part-time guys, and one of them was a professional

developer who works in London in a firm as a developer. But he did the course – so for him, he was

picking up all these things about creativity, brainstorming, coming up with ideas. We did courses like

that too, apart from all the coding courses, and yeah.

So, yeah, a space like DigiLab can make that clear to people. So, someone like J, who was a Python

programmer, and he worked with hardware, Raspberry Pi. In fact, he used to joke that if there was

any problem that needed solving, he would not only solve it with Raspberry Pi, he would find an

excuse to enforce it that it had to be solved using a Raspberry Pi. You know, and I had to talk to him

at a point that “Dude, it’s great that you understand Python, you love Raspberry Pi, but there’s a

whole universe outside of all that, that is also interconnected, you know, and I’m glad that you got

convinced to jump on Unity.”

So from being a core programming kind of person, he, when he talks about coding he’s like the ultra-

geek, you know. That stereotype for a geek, that’s him. But now he’s shifting into game

development, and suddenly he’s going to start immersing himself in the world of storytelling, and

you know, and then the connections, he starts to see the connections. And I’ve already started

showing him the connection between what he was doing before, and what he’s doing now. For

example, you could start prototyping game controllers, since he works with hardware, he can you

know, create a unique game controller for the kind of unique games he’s trying to make. You know,

and then things start getting even more interesting, because that’s how stuff like the Oculus Rift,

and all these other hardware devices came about.

They, people were thinking about new ways of engaging with media, like the Microsoft HoloLens [VR

headset for interacting with holograms] for example, they really tried to re-imagine the way we

interact with media, and then boom, something new, a new paradigm is being unleashed on the

world.

The thing about coding is that, if you stick at it you succeed. You know, you’ll break through the

barriers and you’ll solve the problem, yeah, and you, you will really feel great, when you get to that

point. Then you move on to the next stage and you get stuck again, so it’s like a continuous cycle.

But what then happens is that over time you are building confidence, your building your knowledge

base and you stop being so scared about it, and then it becomes a part of you.

63

Interview 2 Interviewee: Seun Oshinaike, DigiLab founder and organiser

Pablo:

What do you think first attracts people to DigiLab?

Seun:

Curiosity - it’s like our filtration system. So, and a lot of the ones that are really key at doing lots of

things here, they get to talk to their, I mean they have lots of friends. They’re clever enough to only

invite certain type of people, because “Oh you’ll like this kind of thing” then they invite them, which

is great.

Pablo:

Because yeah, I’m interested in how do people hear about DigiLab?

Seun:

Word of mouth. I mean, they recommend it to other people, they come. And then maybe when we

go somewhere, we’ll mention “Oh, you should come and check us out at DigiLab, we do this, we do

that.” People will come.

And then, obviously we do a lot of activities online as well: Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and people

come across us on there naturally. If they have, like, an interest in that area, they’re not sure, they

come in. I mean to me, there’s no point trying to force someone that doesn’t have, like, an interest

into the space.

Pablo:

So, can I just ask you a few questions about how you’re organised and run? Do people become

members, is there a membership scheme?

Seun:

Yes, so they pay £5 a month to use the space, and they get a card, which they scan in on the iPad [by

the entrance] whenever they come in. Yeah, that’s how it works. They get a membership, and that

gives them access to pretty much come in here, and use the things in general. But if they want to,

that also gives them free access to the YouTube room, provided they know what they’re doing, and

they’ve been trained on to handle the cameras, so they can use it. The VR [Virtual Reality] room, it

doesn’t give them access to that, they have to pay £2 to be able to have a 20-minute experience.

Which is like, still ridiculously cheap. They would not get that if they go to Stratford, and try the not

so cool Oculus one. Code Club we charge £5 per session, and often the ones that consistently come

pay in bulk. They’ll buy like, if they buy 5 sessions, they get one session discounted. If they buy ten

sessions, they get two sessions discounted, so some parents prefer to do that.

Pablo:

And do you reckon that people just come for the code Club, or when they start doing Code Club do

they start picking up other things?

Seun:

64

It’s a mix. It’s very mixed. I mean now, we don’t actually have a lot of people in the Code Club

currently. The plan is to try to kick start that again next year. So, primarily, because a few actually,

which is kind of weird, have moved out of the borough because of travel, so we need to get new

fresh people in to Code Club.

Pablo:

Do you use Scratch or do you do other things?

Seun:

Code.org. We use Code.org and then we use Code Combat, and we also try and use some of the

robotics – Ozobots [miniature programable robots] for example. They code it, and then do some

more interesting stuff with that.

Pablo:

OK.

Seun:

The biggest challenge is trying to let the parent realise that “No, they’re not just playing a game, they

are actually learning.” They just: “oh, is this just what they’re doing?” Oh, and I’m just like, seriously?

I just think, sometimes I’m tempted to say “OK, why don’t you sit down and do exactly what they’re

doing, and let’s see how you get on? You just think that they’re playing games? No, they’re not just

playing games.”

Pablo:

Do they not realise it’s kind of a big opportunity for them, for learning? Do they not see it in the

same way as the kids?

Seun:

They’re just confused, they’re just. Some of them, no sorry, not all of them, some of them are just

confused and then, because obviously, they don’t understand this kind of language, and also some

of them are just wanting to check, like, what’s the learning pattern, what are they learning? The

funniest thing is, I’m pretty sure, most of them actually, they don’t even do that at school. They

don’t know ask a teacher, like a specific question about what are they learning. They just

automatically give them that trust.

Pablo:

Because they’re at school?

Seun:

They don’t ask what’s going on. So that’s interesting.

And the oldest person we have in the Code Club is 83. An 83-year-old man, which is very brave of

him, learning how to code. And yeah, he enjoys it.

Pablo:

Do you know why he wanted to start?

Seun:

65

Um, that’s a good question. I’ve never really asked him. We’re just happy to see him there, you

know, just learning. Learning and wanting to, and actually having the patience to go everything step-

by-step. Which many people that age, you know, they won’t. Even my mum can barely use her

phone, not talking about an 83-year-old man. So we’ve not actually really asked him that question,

but we’re planning on doing a case study on him at some point.

Pablo:

Do you think that would be an opportunity, to sort of, work with older people?

Seun:

Yes, but…

Pablo:

Because there’s other makerspaces doing kind of Men’s Shed type things, where they get older men,

who are lonely, who maybe don’t go to other places.

Seun:

Um, I mean I wouldn’t say no to it, but me personally I would say no because I simply don’t have the

time for it. But also, um I have to do my full-time job. But if like we got sponsorship or some sort of

funding to do it. We can’t do everything for free, all the time, which is how we’re running the space.

Which we don’t mind, but there’s like, there’s a limit to how far we’re all going to stretch ourselves,

to keep doing that, to keep. To go beyond these bars.

Hence why we’re thinking of putting some paid work stuff together to try and see how can we do a

network of DigiLabs [other public libraries in the UK have approached Seun, wanting to host DigiLabs

in their own libraries]. Also, get foundations in to invest in that CSR [Corporate Social Responsibility]

stuff, try to keep looking into that, to keep it going.

But then what I’m more interested in, especially if we’re going to build a network of DigiLabs, is the

self-sustaining side of things. Because, especially with the first one, the first few that we’re working

on now, you know, one of their strong points is around, they’re more strongly focused on the

business side of things, how to generate revenue, which I’m helping them really hard with. We’re

still learning things out here, and trying to pass on that knowledge - we’ll do this, we’ll do that there.

I mean even now, there was an arrangement we had with someone that was meant to be using, was

using the DigiLab space, to do some – sorry the YouTube room – to do some stuff. And I’m having,

like once we’re into that, I’m having to, I have to put a structure around it, because you know I can’t

just give her unlimited access. No matter whatever she’s giving in return, it just can’t work, because

if you’re doing that and I can’t go on Groupon to get more bookings for people to come and use the

room for studio stuff, I won’t be able to sell a network of DigiLabs to other people, because if we

can’t even prove that we can make money.

So, it’s trying to get across to people, without. And sometimes you just have to be, just have to be

really force myself to be rigid about some of those things. The point that I’m saying is that I’m always

learning too, from trialling different things. See what works, if it doesn’t work, how quickly can we

make changes?

The good thing is that we have the flexibility, because we’re partners, we’re the ones running this

space. We’re partners with the library, but we’re the ones responsible for it, we have that flexibility.

I guess the disadvantage of other places is that, if they, whoever is running the space doesn’t have

that flexibility to make the call and things, then they’re not, they need to be able to move and

develop faster, and to be able to take more risks, and see what’s going to work, what’s not going to

work.

66

Pablo:

I think that that is one of the biggest challenges for libraries, because they are often quite risk

averse, and strapped for cash.

Seun:

I’ve noticed that even with some of the guys that we’re working with. Our first day, the guys in our

team were saying to me “So, how much did you charge them?” for my time to help them, answer

their questions, help them to get the money. I said “Nothing.” “Oh you should charge them

because…” I said “It’s fine.”

Even though I looked like an idiot then, but I knew what I was doing, because what I think is that I

know that they’re going to have to come back to me because they’re librarians, they can’t run this

thing. Well, they can, if they want to go ahead and try and do it, I feel sorry for them because it’s

going to be like a disaster, because they’ll struggle. And they then send an email to say, later on

“Um, we can’t do this ourselves, how heavily involved are you going to be? Blah blah blah.” I can do

one day a week, but you need to set an amount out for my time, for if I’m going to be doing that. It

wouldn’t be more than the cost of sending one of the DigiLab Avengers going there, or Ayo or maybe

someone else. Then the time needs to be covered, otherwise its unfair, if they expect.

This is like a massive experiment for us. We can’t be expected to be experimenting everywhere else,

and just spending our time. These guys need to pay the rent. I need to pay the rent. It’s nice to do

things for free, but that’s not cool. They’re librarians that are getting paid to do their stuff. So you’re

just trying to find all that balance, like all the time.

And also, on the understanding that at the end of the day they don’t have a lot of money – but

actually, to a certain extent they do. But, it’s just that they’re choosing to spend it in the wrong

places. So, if you’re still spending time buying more books, buying more DVDs and CDs, it’s a stupid

waste of money. Like seriously, even the people – yes there might be a very small percentage that

still borrow – but we’re moving out of that, we’re shifting out of that. They should be looking to

spend that money into somewhere else, that is you know, the next thing that is going.

Pablo:

So, what do you see as the future of libraries?

Seun:

So, in Canada for example, their libraries are so different to how it is here. They’re more, to a certain

extent makerspace type of library, in the sense that you can also use it just for like general

community use. Which is how they’ve converted this library, if you need housing help or if you’re a

refugee, you go there. It’s multi-purpose. That’s what the future of the libraries here in the UK needs

to be, if they are going to survive. But I also think that more importantly, they need to adopt more

things like this [DigiLab]. Because, the libraries themselves, they don’t make a lot of money anyway,

other than the ones that have rooms that they’re renting out. Here [Barking Library] they make a lot

of money from renting out rooms, halls and stuff. They do that, but they don’t make a lot of money

and they’ve been doing that for a while. So, it’s not a bad idea if they have things, with this type of

feel, where people can just be sporadically creative, be inspired by things and they can experiment

and quickly build prototypes, and not necessarily make money.

My aim for us is to be making between 10 to 50% of our revenue in-house, from what we’re selling.

Which is, we’re at like 10 to 20%, thereabouts at the moment, which is not bad. How can we

continue to push that forward?

67

Pablo:

How are you funded?

Seun:

We’re not funded, at all. We just make our own bits of money. Like now, he’s on work placement

[work placement student in the office area], he’s just gone to Wilko to get some bits that we want to

use: some washers and some screws, that we want to use to build the sensors for the bin, for an

experiment that we’re trying. It’s from the money that we made from the Code Club, just into the

parts. Take some of that and get it, it’s fine.

But in terms of how we built the space itself, the library had given us some seed money to buy all

the materials, the wood to build it, and to buy some equipment. That’s it. Everything else is up to us,

how we just keep it going. We don’t use, we don’t really need much, really. We’re not paying rent,

so we don’t really need much, other than the fact that if we need to build something, we need to

buy some of the materials. That’s it. And obviously the time, people’s time, ideally, of running the

space.

So, with a lot of the networks that we’re going to be building, I guess that we need to factor in is – I

guess there’s two keys things. One, to have transition time, of covering the cost of someone from

the main DigiLab that helps them to transition, of their time to do that. And then the other thing

being, doing early consultation, or community engagement early, to find the right people who are

your Ayos, your J, your S. Those sort of people, that would be the ones that they’re really passionate

about it, and they’ll be there most of the time. And then they, once you get those people, they’ll

then be fine to co-ordinate what’s going on.

Then you pick a specific time that you’re open, that’s going to be convenient for everyone. And some

of the library staff do get involved here, like help us out with maybe some of the social media stuff,

or just designing flyers, they do get involved. But once you’ve set that in place and then you have –

you’re not open 24/7, you’re not open all the time. Keep the time – even if you just start with just

three, four days a week only, or two days a week – that the space is going to be open.

Pablo:

Because then you can concentrate?

Seun:

Exactly, then you can concentrate, and you build and you can add additional, maybe in six months, in

twelve months’ time, you can add additional days that you’re open. That way it makes sense, rather

than if, I think most people see it as “Oh, it needs to be open all the time.” Just because the library is

open, it doesn’t mean that our part of the library needs to be open all the time. Like the shop, for

example, we’re only going to be open at first just Thursday, Friday, Saturday. That’s it. Then they’ll

know, that’s when it’s going to be open, and everyone can come and order their stuff during that

time. Outside of those specific times it’s not open, but then, because first I need to focus on those

three days. And then, make sure we have a staff member that is responsible for the space.

If this is going to work, then you can add another day, another two days to it. Trying to do it one go,

it’s chaos.

Pablo:

What are you going to sell in the shop?

Seun:

68

Like, drones, VR headsets, just all sorts, like gadgets. And then we have two products that we’re

going to be, that were made in-house, that we’re going to be going there as well. One is, it’s kind of

like an instruction manual, of how to make your own helicopter, with normal, just any random

drinking bottle. So one of the guys, he’s thirteen, worked on it. He’s really into design, and making

things. So he designed, he made one, and he’s working on his second product now actually, and I

just told him “OK, think of Ikea, when you go there. When you’re setting up your wardrobe, there’s

an instruction manual of how to make it. Design the same thing, and I’ll give it to one of our other

designers in here. They’ll sex it up with their Photoshop skills, or whatever software they want to

use.” And then he did that, then I paid him some money to cover his time to that, from my own

pocket. We’ve done that, and we just now told his parents to begin to buy a bit of the material.

That’ll cost us, each product for us to make will be like, maybe no more than £2 to £4 maximum –

between £2 and £4. And we’re going to make two dozen of those, buy some electric motors, and

then some bits that maybe they might not find easily. And then the rest, just drinking bottles, some

sticks. They’ll make it themselves. And we’ll sell, we’ll package these two to three pounds’ worth of

things with the manual, put it the packaging, and sell it for £9.99 in the shop.

The other thing is a stylus pen made out of foil paper, and sellotape. And then again we’ve done an

instruction manual. That one is purely instruction manual, because those two things you can easily

find from your own home. We’re going to be selling that – the design is nearly done – selling that as

just the paper, £1. He gets 50p of it, 50p goes to DigiLab.

So they’ve got two products now. And both of them are already working on their second product.

These are different sets of different young people doing this. And eventually, before you know it

within a year, I reckon easily, there’ll be ten products being made exclusively out of DigiLab. So there

are other products we’re going to order from outside and sell here. And we’ve got mix and other

experiments going on in-house. That’s the magic.

Pablo:

Do you reckon that eventually you’ll be able to sell them externally?

Seun:

Sell them externally? Yeah, definitely. Especially first from our online shop, that we’re going to be

adding to the website, so people can order from there and we’ll deliver to them. But definitely, we’ll

be able to sell externally. And sell some of our things in other shops as well as our online store. We’ll

experiment with our own in-house first, to see how that goes.

I think also, it’s, there needs to be like, before, we’re doing a lot of everything in-house, but then, in

terms of our own [unclear word] we’re putting a lot of energy into that, which is fine to a certain

extent, but we’ll never scale if we just do that. Hence why we’re trying to make sure we secure the

two corporate sponsorships as well, because then that will take off a tiny bit of pressure.

We have more kit from Pi-tops [company who produce Raspberry Pi powered laptop DIY kits], and

they’ll be using us as a test bed to test their new products. And then the other one, WorldPay

[multinational payment processing company], that will involve cash. They’re going to give us some

money to run, maybe I don’t know, something sponsored by WorldPay. That’ll be pretty cool. So,

from those two points of view, it’ll really help us out. We need to make sure we get another two or

three of those from different companies. And then, you know, it’s becoming happy days.

69

Appendix 9.5 Participant Information sheet

Creating a Library Makerspace: Evaluating the Value of Digital Making in Public

Libraries

I would like to invite you to take part in a research study. Before you decide whether you would like to

take part it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it would involve

for you. Please take time to read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you

wish. You may contact me if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information, by

contacting me at pablo.calvo@city.ac.uk

What is the purpose of the study?

This study is looking at public library services that are creating spaces which give their users access

to innovative digital manufacturing equipment. These types of spaces often have a variety of names,

such as Makerspaces or Fab Labs. Many libraries in the UK are creating these new services, and the

aim of this study is to find out what sorts of activities are taking place, and how these benefit the

people using them.

This project is being done as part of my Master degree in Library Science at City University London,

to be completed in January 2017.

Why have I been invited?

DigiLab has been invited to participate because it has a maker space associated with a public library

service, gives access to a wide range of digital equipment and has been open for more than 6

months. You should be able to provide insight into how people use DigiLab’s facilities, and be able to

share some of the lessons learnt in running the space.

Do I have to take part?

Taking part in the project is voluntary, and you can choose not to participate in part or all of the

project. You can withdraw at any stage of the project without being penalised or disadvantaged in any

way.

It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. If you do decide to take part, you will be asked to

sign a consent form. If you decide to take part, you are still free to withdraw at any time and without

giving a reason.

What will happen if I take part?

• DigiLab will be used as a case study for the project. The researcher Pablo Calvo will visit DigiLab to view the facilities and to interview people responsible for running the space. For example, this may be the people who founded the space, volunteers or library staff. Any participants agreeing to be interviewed would have to be aged 18 or above, and each agree to sign a consent form.

• Interviews will take between 30 minutes to an hour. They will follow a semi-structured format, discussing what facilities and activities you offer users, and how people interact with the makerspace. Pablo will be taking notes and an audio recording of the discussion.

• Accompanied by a member of the makerspace, Pablo will view the facilities and equipment, and take photographs to illustrate the final report.

• The research project will end in December 2016

What are the possible benefits of taking part?

Taking part in this research could help raise awareness about the benefits of digital making in

libraries, by creating an understanding of how your maker space works, and how it benefits your

users. Taking part could help other library services in the UK to launch similar services for their

communities.

70

Will my taking part in the study be kept confidential?

You can decide whether to be identified in the final report by name, or only by a description of your

role in the library/maker space, such as participant, volunteer or organizer. No other personal

information, such as contact details, will be published in the final report.

If collected, any other personal information will be stored in a password protected document, which

will only be accessed by the researcher, and will be deleted after the project is complete. Audio

recordings will be transcribed, and the original recording deleted after the project is complete.

What will happen to results of the research study?

The results of this study will be written up as a dissertation for a Master Degree in Library Science,

which will be stored by City University London. If the study is included in any future publications, such

as a journal article, the same level of anonymity chosen by you will be maintained.

What will happen if I don’t want to carry on with the study?

You are free to withdraw from the study without an explanation or penalty at any time.

What if there is a problem?

If you have any problems, concerns or questions about this study, you should ask to speak to a

member of the research team. If you remain unhappy and wish to complain formally, you can do this

through the University complaints procedure. To complain about the study, you need to phone 020

7040 3040. You can then ask to speak to the Secretary to Senate Research Ethics Committee and

inform them that the name of the project is: Creating a Library Makerspace: Evaluating the Value

of Digital Making in Public Libraries

You could also write to the Secretary at: Anna Ramberg Secretary to Senate Research Ethics Committee Research Office, E214 City University London Northampton Square London EC1V 0HB Email: Anna.Ramberg.1@city.ac.uk

City University London holds insurance policies which apply to this study. If you feel you have been

harmed or injured by taking part in this study you may be eligible to claim compensation. This does

not affect your legal rights to seek compensation. If you are harmed due to someone’s negligence,

then you may have grounds for legal action.

Who has reviewed the study?

This study has been approved by City University London Research Ethics Committee

Further information and contact details

Researcher:

Pablo Calvo

Pablo.Calvo@city.ac.uk

Project supervisor:

Dr Lyn Robinson

L.Robinson@city.ac.uk

Thank you for taking the time to read this information sheet.

71

Appendix 9.6 Participant Consent form

Creating a Library Makerspace: Evaluating the Value of Digital Making in Public

Libraries

Please tick box

1. I agree to take part in the above City, University of London research

project. I have had the project explained to me, and I have read the

participant information sheet, which I may keep for my records.

I understand that the research will involve:

• granting access to the researcher Pablo Calvo to the makerspace, and allowing him to photograph the facilities and equipment

• being interviewed by the researcher, and allow the interview to be audiotaped

• activities in the maker space being observed by the researcher

• agree to answer further questions after the site visit by email or phone if required

2. This information will be held and processed for the following

purpose:

• I understand that I have given approval for my name and/or the description of my role to be used in the final report of the project, and future publications.

• Audio recordings of interviews will be transcribed, and the original recording deleted after the project is complete.

3. I understand that my participation is voluntary, that I can choose not

to participate in part of or all the project, and that I can withdraw at

any stage of the project without being penalized or disadvantaged in

any way.

4. I agree to City University London recording and processing this

information about me. I understand that this information will be used

only for the purposes set out in this statement and my consent is

conditional on the University complying with its duties and

obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998.

5. I agree to take part in the above study.

____________________ ____________________________ _____________

Name of Participant Signature Date

____________________ ____________________________ _____________

Name of Researcher Signature Date

When completed, 1 copy for participant; 1 copy for researcher file.